Bay Island Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project Title: Bay Island Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685-8915

3. Contact Person and Telephone Number: Jim Campbell, 949-644-3210

4. Project Location: Bay Island, Newport Harbor

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Bay Island Club, Inc., 25 Bay Island Newport Beach, CA 92661

6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential A (8.1-13.3 DU/AC) / Open Space

7. Zoning: Multi-family Residential District (MFR) / Planned Residential Development (PRD)

8. Description of Project:

Bay Island is a private residential community in Lower Newport Bay in Newport Beach, California (Figure 1). There are 23 single-family homes on the island. The island is connected to Balboa Peninsula via a gated pedestrian bridge at the end of Island Avenue. Residents typically use golf carts on the island because motor vehicles are prohibited. A 48-space parking structure, located at 501 West Bay Avenue, is provided for residents off of the island.

The proposed project includes two main components – bulkhead wall repair and bridge replacement. A third project component is installation of a small submerged sand retention wall for beach stabilization.

1. Bulkhead Repair

1a. Background

The island is protected by bulkhead walls on the northern, western and southern sides, and by sandy beach on the eastern side. There is also a very small sandy beach along the western side, in between a break in the bulkhead wall. The bulkheads were constructed in the late 1920s. There are two types of bulkheads that currently exist around the island. Along the southern and northeastern edges, the bulkheads were constructed using steel sheetpiles with a concrete cap and tie backs to timber pile anchors. Along the western edge, the bulkhead was constructed using concrete soldier piles with tiebacks to timber pile anchors, and concrete panels between the soldier piles. The soldier piles and panels are topped with a concrete cap of the same cross-section as the steel sheetpile wall, creating a uniform look from the land side.

The steel sheetpile bulkhead in the southeastern corner has begun to fail and needs to be replaced before it collapses and leaves the backland vulnerable to erosion and loss of foundation strength for structures. The concrete bulkheads also need to be repaired as they are experiencing cracking and spauling due to corrosion of the reinforced steel. The proposed approach involves two different approaches to repair/replace the entire perimeter of bulkhead wall and. In one section of the perimeter, the new bulkhead wall would be installed within or landward of the existing bulkhead’s footprint. For the other section of perimeter, the new bulkhead would be installed outside (seaward) of the existing bulkhead.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 Bay Island

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 1b. Design Description

For the northern and northwestern perimeter of the island (shown by blue line on Figure BH-1), new sheetpiles would be constructed outside of the existing bulkhead wall cap as shown in Figures BH-2 and BH-3. An outside alignment is necessary along this section because there are homes and/or large mature trees very near, and in one case touching, the existing bulkhead wall. There is not sufficient room to install temporary sheetpile landward of the existing bulkhead to install the new bulkhead within the existing footprint. Construction would involve removing the old bulkhead cap, installing the new steel sheetpile bulkhead seaward of the existing bulkhead wall, and then installing a new cap over both the old and new piles.

A new drain system would be installed on the landward side along the entire length of the bulkhead wall, as shown in Figures BH-2, BH-3 and BH-4. The drainage system includes one-way Tideflex valves that allow discharge of dry weather and storm runoff into the bay, but prevent saltwater intrusion. At each of the runoff discharge outlets, a basket-type filtration unit would prevent debris from being discharged into the bay.

For the southern and southwestern edges (shown by green line on Figure BH-1), the construction approach would be to remove the existing bulkhead and install new steel sheetpiles within or landward of the existing footprint as shown in Figure BH-4. A portion of this new bulkhead would be along a new alignment, landward of the existing bulkhead line in the southeastern corner of the island. This would create new subtidal habitat area to balance the subtidal area lost from the outside alignment bulkhead sections (discussed above), at a 4:1 mitigation ratio. Figure BH-1 shows this new alignment. Approximately 760 cubic yards of sand would be removed from this southeastern corner and placed above the high tide line on the beaches on the eastern and/or western side of Bay Island.

Steel sheetpiles, rather than concrete, would be used for the new bulkheads in all areas. No coatings would be used on the sheetpiles. The bulkhead cap would be concrete. The elevation of the top of the concrete cap would be +9 feet MLLW, which brings the bulkhead wall into compliance with current standards for coastal flood protection.

1c. Construction Methods

Construction of the bulkheads is primarily a water-based operation (i.e., construction work would be done from a floating barge). Staging also would be water-based, with the exception that there would probably be the need to store the steel sheetpiles on land. The most likely locations to store the sheetpiles are the small unpaved lot at the end of Island Avenue or the beach area on the east side of Bay Island. In order for the barge to obtain close access to the bulkhead area, docks (including landings) and boats would have to be detached and temporarily relocated elsewhere within the bay.

For the southern and southwestern bulkheads, the new bulkhead would be installed in the same footprint (or landward) of the existing bulkhead. Trees and shrubs immediately adjacent to the bulkhead wall would need to be removed. Temporary shoring would be installed first. The steel sheetpiles to be used for the new northern bulkheads would be used for this temporary shoring in the southern section. The temporary steel sheetpiles would be installed 5-6 feet landward of the existing bulkhead wall. This would be done using a vibratory hammer based from a barge. A vibratory hammer is faster and quieter than an impact hammer. The area between the temporary shoring and existing wall would be excavated down to approximately the mudline and the material would be temporarily stockpiled. The existing concrete and steel sheetpile bulkheads would be demolished, removed, and disposed of properly. Silt curtains would be used to minimize any turbidity in the adjacent subtidal areas. The new sheetpile bulkhead would be installed in the same footprint as before, down approximately 23 feet into the ground using a vibratory hammer. The area in between the temporary shoring and new bulkhead wall would be backfilled with the same material that was previously removed. Just prior to completion of filling, the new drain system and new concrete cap would be installed. The temporary shoring would then be extracted using a vibratory hammer to be re-used as the new northern bulkhead. The docks would then be returned and re-attached to their original location.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 New bulkhead within or landward of existing bulkhead alignment New bulkhead outside of existing bulkhead alignment

Sandy Beach Area to be Removed To Create New Subtidal Area (3,100 sq. ft)

Prepared by: Moffatt & Nichol April 14, 2006 P:/5762/Permits/City of Newport Beach

Bay Island Figure Project Bulkhead Repair – Plan View BH-1 Scale: 1” = 4’

Typical Section A

Prepared by: Moffatt & Nichol April 14, 2006 P:/5762/Permits/City of Newport Beach

Bay Island Bulkhead Repair – Representative Cross Section Figure Project – Western Side of Island BH-2 Scale: 1” = 4’

Typical Section B

Prepared by: Moffatt & Nichol April 14, 2006 P:/5762/Permits/City of Newport Beach

Bay Island Bulkhead Repair – Representative Cross Section Figure Project – Northern Side of Island BH-3 Scale: 1” = 4’

Typical Section C

Prepared by: Moffatt & Nichol April 14, 2006 P:/5762/Permits/City of Newport Beach

Bay Island Bulkhead Repair – Representative Cross Section Figure Project – Southern Side of Island BH-4 The construction of the southeastern corner is similar to the southern and southwestern approach above. However, for this area, where private beach area is to be removed for mitigation purposes, the sand in between the new and existing wall would be excavated and placed on the beaches on the eastern and/or western side of Bay Island. The gangway to the existing dock in this area would need to be lengthened, which would occur after completion of the bulkhead work when the dock is returned from its temporary relocation.

For the northern bulkheads, the new bulkhead would be installed seaward of the existing bulkhead (Figures BH-2 and BH-3). The concrete cap of the existing bulkhead would be used as a template. The new steel sheetpiles would be installed down approximately 23 feet into the ground, immediately adjacent to the existing cap, using a vibratory hammer. The existing concrete cap would then be removed and the gap in between the old and new bulkheads would be filled with gravel or lean concrete. Just prior to completion of filling, the new drain system would be installed and the new concrete cap would be constructed over the new and old sheetpiles. The docks would then be returned and re-attached to their original location.

2. Bridge Replacement

2a. Background

Access to Bay Island is via a pedestrian bridge at the terminus of Island Avenue on the Balboa peninsula of Newport Beach. The bridge also carries all utilities (water, sewer, gas, power, telephone, cable TV) to/from the Island. The bridge was constructed in the late 1950’s (1958-1959). The bridge is over a small channel between Bay Island and the Balboa Peninsula. The channel is approximately 60 feet wide from pierhead line to pierhead line and 20 feet wide in between piles of the existing bridge. The deepest water depth is approximately -7 feet relative to Mean Sea Level in the area under the bridge. The channel is used by small recreational boats (e.g., Duffy boats, kayaks, rowboats) and is closed to motor boat traffic during the summer months when people are using the adjacent beach/swim areas.

The existing bridge is made of pre-cast concrete panels over pre-stressed concrete piles and cast-inplace concrete cap, and is also a conduit for all utilities to the Island. It is load-limited to, and only wide enough for, pedestrians and golf carts. Emergency vehicle access to the island is not currently possible. Other issues with the existing bridge are ADA compliance, golf cart interference on the peninsula-side sidewalk, and earthquake stability.

The design slope of the existing bridge from the sidewalk at the end of Island Avenue to the high point of the bridge is greater than 8 percent and has a total rise of approximately five feet. This grade does not meet current ADA requirements for a pedestrian access way. On the island side, the bridge continues as an elevated structure for an additional 120 feet. This requires access to lateral walkways to be made by stairways.

The entrance to the bridge is on a projection of the eastern sidewalk along Island Avenue. Because many of the residents of Bay Island drive “golf” carts across the bridge to their residence after parking their cars in a parking garage a block away, the current alignment requires them to drive on the sidewalk to approach the bridge, which sometimes interferes with pedestrians using the sidewalk.

A recent seismic study of the bridge noted that earthquake damage to the bridge would probably result in loss of utilities service to Bay Island, and re-establishment of these utilities could take several months.

2b. Design Description

The proposed project is to construct a new bridge in a slightly different location than the existing bridge, and then demolish the existing bridge when construction is complete. The proposed design of the new bridge includes a new alignment, lower vertical profile, increased load-carrying capability, a wider deck, and fewer piles. Figure Br-1 shows the new alignment relative to the existing bridge. Figure Br-2 shows the vertical profile of the new bridge as compared to the existing bridge.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 8 New Bridge

Bay Islan Existing Bridge – To Be Demolished

Prepared by: Moffatt & Nichol

Bay Island Project Bridge Replacement – Plan View Existing Bridge Profile 1" = 10'

Proposed Bridge Profile Prepared by: Moffatt & Nichol 1" = 10' The change in alignment would allow golf carts to remain in the street until the final approach to the bridge entrance, thereby leaving the sidewalk for pedestrians. It also has a secondary benefit during construction. If the bridge was reconstructed in the same location as currently exists, it would require the construction of a temporary island access structure and temporary relocation of the utilities. Then after the existing bridge is removed and the new bridge constructed, the utilities would need to be relocated again and the temporary bridge removed. This results in doubling the construction effort and construction time. On the other hand, having the new bridge in a new location allows the existing bridge and utilities to be used during the construction period. Once construction of the new bridge is complete, the utilities would be relocated once and the old bridge removed.

In order to meet ADA guidelines and resident needs, the approach grade of the bridge needs to be reduced to 5 percent. This results in the top elevation being 0.65 feet (8 inches) lower than the existing bridge, as seen in Figure Br-2. The bridge is closed to boat traffic during the summer months; very few and only small boats use this bridged channel; and there is an open navigational path around the north side of the island. Given these considerations, the loss of less than 8 inches of clearance should have very little effect on local boat traffic.

For safety and practical reasons, the new bridge would be wider and designed to carry higher loads to allow access for emergency ambulances as well as maintenance vehicles.

Although the new bridge would have a slightly larger “shadow” over the water (32 square yards more than the existing design), the new bridge design would include fewer piles and thus would have less impact to the subtidal and benthic environments. The new bridge would have six 18-inch diameter piles (three piers with two piles each). The existing bridge has fourteen 14-inch square piles (seven piers with two piles each). Figure Br-2 shows the spacing of the piles.

Drainage from the new bridge would be better than the current approach. The existing bridge has no drainage features and stormwater simply runs off the sides of the bridge and into the bay waters. The new bridge would be designed to channel runoff off the bridge into a trench drain on the island end of the bridge and into the existing storm drain system on the peninsula end. No runoff water would discharge off the sides of the bridge and into the bay with the new design.

2c. Construction Methods

Construction of the bridge would involve water-based and possibly land-based operations. The new bridge would be constructed first, prior to demolition of the existing bridge, to allow for access to/from the island during the construction period. Silt curtains would be used throughout the entire construction operation.

The six pre-stressed, pre-cast concrete piles for the new bridge would be installed using an impact hammer and possibly jetting. The jetting would come from a jet-pipe internal to the pile such that the jetting is directed precisely underneath the installation area. The piles would be driven approximately 30 feet into the bottom; installation time would likely be 10-15 minutes per pile.

The bridge super-structure would be installed over the piles. If the super-structure is pre-cast it would be placed via barge. If the super-structure is cast-in-place, the concrete operations would be from land- based equipment at the end of Island Avenue and would require a one-month cure time prior to further work commencing.

The utilities from the old bridge would then be changed over to the new bridge and paving at either end of the new bridge would be completed. Lastly, the old bridge would be removed. The old piles would likely require jetting for their removal.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 3. Sand Retention Wall

3a. Background

There is a small “pocket” beach on the western side of Bay Island, in between a break in the bulkhead wall. Sand erodes at this area, causing loss of the recreational beach and filling of the adjacent boating area. A submerged offshore wall is proposed to prevent the sand from leaving the beach area and to maintain a 5:1 (horizontal:vertical) beach slope.

3b. Design Description

An L-shaped wall would be constructed, where the long leg is parallel to the shoreline and the short leg is perpendicular to the shoreline. A small groin wall already exists on the other side of the “L”. The shore- parallel section of wall would be ~80 feet long and installed at the shoreline elevation of approximately -1 foot MLLW. The shore-perpendicular section would be ~23 feet long and would join the shoreline at a small landside retaining wall. The wall would be made of fiberglass.

The footprint of this new sand retention wall is approximately 100 square feet (sq ft). The mitigation for this loss of subtidal habitat is accounted for in the removal of sandy beach area in the southeastern corner of the island as discussed above, at a 4:1 mitigation ratio. The location and cross section of the new proposed wall is shown in Figures BSW-1 and BSW-2.

3c. Construction Methods

The fiberglass sheetpile wall would be installed using vibratory hammer down approximately 6 feet into the bottom. The pre-manufactured cap would be installed and fastened in place.

Construction Timing and Equipment

In order to minimize disruption during the summer months when activity in the project area is the busiest, it is preferred to start construction in the late fall of this year (2006). However, the start of construction would be ultimately predicated on when final approvals of all permits are received. The total construction period to complete all three project components is estimated to be 6-8 months.

A summary of the construction equipment anticipated to be used for each component described above is shown in Table 1. The same equipment used for the bulkhead repair would be used for the sand retention wall, as work progresses around the island.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 d n a l s I

y a B

Prepared by: Moffatt & Nichol April 14, 2006 Scale: 1” = 40’ P:/5762/Permits/City of Newport Beach

Bay Island Figure Project Beach Stabilization Wall – Plan View BSW-1 Prepared by: Moffatt & Nichol April 14, 2006 Scale: 1” = 8’ P:/5762/Permits/City of Newport Beach

Bay Island Beach Stabilization Wall – Figure Project Representative Cross Section BSW-2 Table 1 Bay Isle – Anticipated Construction Equipment

Construction Equipment Bulkhead and Sand Bridge Retention Wall Floating barge 1 1 Tug boat 1 Crane mounted on floating barge 1 – 45 ton 1 *** Vibratory hammer 1 Work boats 1 1 Concrete trucks w/pump* 37 13 (if cast inplace) Booster pump* 1 Hydraulic press** Impact hammer 1 Skip-loader-backhoe 1 Concrete-cutting equipment 1 1 Jack hammer 1 Steel-cutting equipment 1 Dump trucks 80 20 Workers’ personal vehicles 10 10 * concrete trucks would be on land side. A booster pump would be required to reach the northern portion of the island. ** for sheet piles, option to vibratory hammer. *** if bridge is precast, crane would be 80-ton; if bridge is cast inplace, crane would be 45-ton.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The surrounding environment is the bay. The closest residential area, across the bridge, is the Balboa Peninsula which is comprised of medium density residential units.

North: The Newport Harbor lies adjacent to the north of Bay Isle. Across the Harbor lies Harbor Island which is comprised of single family residential land uses.

East: The Newport Harbor lies adjacent to the east of Bay Isle. Across the Harbor lies Balboa Island which is comprised of single and multi-family residential uses.

South: The Newport Peninsula lies adjacent to the south of Bay Isle across a small stretch of water. This area is comprised of single and multi-family residences within the project vicinity.

West: The Newport Harbor lies adjacent to the west of Bay Isle. Across the Harbor lies Lido Island which is comprised of single family residential uses.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Hazards/Hazardous Materials Public Services Agriculture Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Geology and Soils Population and Housing

Determination

On the basis of this evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name Agency

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 I. AESTHETICS

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

Temporary impacts to the visual environmental would occur with the construction activity. Construction would be primarily water based, with work done from a floating barge. Staging would also be mainly water-based, with the exception of the need to store steel sheetpiles for the bulkhead repair on land, and some land-based staging for the bridge replacement. Barges, crane, and work boats would be visible from the water side, with minor activity on the land areas. Construction would occur for an approximate 6 to 8 month currently estimated from late 2006/early 2007. Impacts would be temporary, but less than significant because these activities and vehicle trips are not uncommon in the harbor, and construction vehicles are often docked or moored in the area.

Operation

There would be minor permanent changes to the visual environment associated with the bridge. The new bridge would be in a slightly different location (see Figures Br-1 and Br-2 showing the new alignment relative to the existing bridge), and the vertical profile of the new bridge compared to the existing bridge. The new bridge would have a 5 percent grade, instead of the existing 8 percent grade to accommodate ADA access and would be approximately 8 inches lower than the existing bridge. The new bridge and entrance area to the new bridge (on the peninsula side) would be aesthetically much more appealing than the existing bridge. The design would be contemporary with clean lines and low walls. An arched trellis sitting on four simple columns with simple landscaping is envisioned as the bridge entry on the landside. A covered trash structure on the landside would eliminate having unsightly trash bags sitting on the street. These changes would result in a less than significant impact. b) Would the project substantially Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, Less than Potentially Significant Less than rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a Significant with Mitigation Significant No state scenic highway? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

There are no designated scenic resources in this area, thus there would be no impact.

c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and Less than Potentially Significant Less than its surroundings? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

See I.a., above.

Operation

The entrance to the existing bridge is on a projection of the eastern sidewalk along Island Avenue. The new bridge would realign the entrance to be a projection of Island Avenue. This realignment would

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 appear as a continuous transition from the street to the bridge, and would be a visual enhancement over the existing condition. Visual impacts would be less than significant.

d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely Potentially Less than Significant Significant Less than affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact with Mitigation Significant No Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

No construction would occur during night time hours, as such no lighting impacts during construction would occur.

Operation

Proposed low level lighting would be directed away from residences so as to not result in glare or disturbance to residents on either side of the bridge. The lighting is necessary for security and for nighttime use of the bridge. Any lighting to be used would be subject to review and approval by the City.

Mitigation Measure

The Applicant shall submit the lighting plan for approval to the City prior to implementation.

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Less than Potentially Significant Less than Monitoring Program of the California Resources Significant with Mitigation Significant No Agency, to non-agricultural use? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The project does not involve any conversion of land use nor is the project in an area where farming is feasible, thus, no impacts to any areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

According to the Williamson Act contract, there is no existing zoning for agricultural usage. No impacts would result in the proposed project.

c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location Less than Potentially Significant Less than or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, Significant with Mitigation Significant No to non-agricultural use? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The project is located over waters of the Newport Bay in a built environment, thus there would be no changes of any Farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts would result in the proposed project.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 III. AIR QUALITY

The air quality assessment for the proposed project included estimating emissions associated with construction and operation of the project. The impact analysis contained in this section was prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as included in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology , and makes use of the California Air Resources Boards EMFAC2002 Emissions Model as well as the USEPA SCREEN3 Air Dispersion Model. A complete copy of the air quality analysis is included as Appendix A.

The project is located within the Newport Bay area located in the southeastern portion of the North Coastal Source/Receptor Area (SRA) 18 and ambient air quality levels are best inferred from the North Coastal monitoring station located in Costa Mesa to the northwest of the project. However, the North Coastal station does not measure particulates and these data are as reported at the Central Orange County (SRA 17) monitoring station located in Anaheim. These are two areas under SCAQMD jurisdiction. The communities within a given SRA are expected to have similar climatology. Additionally, similar traffic levels and the presence of local point sources contribute emissions to these areas. Subsequently, similar ambient air pollutant concentrations are expected within any given SRA. The most current five years of data monitored at these stations are included in Table III-1.

The data indicate that although improvement has been made, the area continues to exceed the State and federal ozone standards on a regular basis. Still, the area experiences some of the best air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. PM 10 particulates, as measured at the inland Orange County monitoring station, also exceed the State standard, but have not exceeded the federal standards in the last 5 years of data. Furthermore, while these levels have dropped from the past, no clear trend is discernable over the last 5 years. The area also experiences exceedances of the PM 2.5 standard. Suspended particulate matter is a mixture of natural and manmade materials that include soil particles, biological materials, sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, and lead. Smaller particles (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) are created by the combustion of fossil fuels, but are also given off from tire wear and brake dust. Particulate levels in the more coastal project area would be expected to be lower than those measured at the Central Orange County area due to the sea breeze as well as a reduced level of mobile source emissions in the area.

None of the other criteria pollutants have exceeded their relevant standards in the last 5 years of monitoring.

Sensitive Receptors

Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases.

Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Schools are also considered sensitive, as children are present for extended periods of time. Active recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public.

The project is located in a residential area of the Newport Bay. The most proximate of these homes could be as close as about 25 feet from construction activities.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 Table III-1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary North Coastal Orange County Monitoring Station

Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Pollutant/Standard Maximum Levels During Such Violations 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Ozone State 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm 1 0 4 5 0 Federal 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm 0 0 0 1 0 Federal 8-Hour > 0.08 ppm 0 0 1 2 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.098 0.087 0.107 0.104 0.085 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.073 0.071 0.088 0.087 0.073 Carbon Monoxide State 1-Hour > 20 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 8-Hour > 9.5 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 6 5 7 5 5 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 4.6 4.3 5.8 4.1 3.3 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 Sulfur Dioxide State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 2 Inhalable Particulates (PM 10 ) State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m 3 19.6 1 8.2 9.8 11.5 4.8 Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m 3 01 0 0 0 0 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m 3) 93 1 69 96 74 65 2 Inhalable Particulates (PM 2.5 ) Federal 24-Hour > 65 µg/m 3 0.4 1 0.3 0.9 0 0 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m 3) 70.8 1 68.6 115.5 58.9 54.7 1 Less than 12 full months of data and may not be representative. 2 Percent of samples exceeding standard. Particulates as monitored at Central Orange County. ppm: parts per million; µg/m 3: micrograms per cubic meter Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Projected heavy equipment air emissions are calculated using the emissions data included in Tables A9- 8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook ) (April 1993). Daily equipment use is based on an assumed equipment assemblage prepared by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers.

Piles would be placed using a vibratory hammer. The hammer could be placed aboard a barge that would be positioned using a tugboat. Tugboat emissions are based on data included in AP-42, A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors prepared by the USEPA (September 1985).

Vehicle emissions were calculated using Year 2006 projections for Orange County vehicle travel included in the EMFAC2002 emissions model distributed by the CARB. The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook . The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. Additionally, the potential for localized impacts is assessed for site construction using screening tables included in the SCAQMD Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size (February 2005).

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Operations

The proposed project represents the replacement of bulkheads and sheetpiles and an existing bridge. The project is not expected to draw additional residents to the area and no long-term emissions are associated with the project. Furthermore, as discussed below, construction emission levels would be mitigated to less than significant and the project would not result in significant concentrations of localized pollutants at receptor locations. As such, with the included mitigation for construction, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact.

b) Would the project violate any air quality standard Less than or contribute substantially to an existing or Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No projected air quality violation? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Air pollutant emissions associated with the project could occur over the short-term from construction activities to support the proposed project. Once installed, the project is not expected to draw additional residents to the area. As such, no long-term emissions are associated with the completed project.

Standards of Significance

Regional Emissions Thresholds for Construction

The following significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established by the SCAQMD. Projects in the SCAB with construction-related emissions that exceed any of these emission thresholds could be considered to be significant:

75 pounds per day of ROG

100 pounds per day of NOx

550 pounds per day of CO

150 pounds per day of PM 10

150 pounds per day of SOx

Regional Emissions Thresholds for Operations

Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD Handbook . The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with existing State Implementation Plan (SIP) or consistency with the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The daily operational emissions “significance” thresholds are:

55 pounds per day of ROG

55 pounds per day of NOx

550 pounds per day of CO

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 150 pounds per day of PM 10 150 pounds per day of SOx

Projects in the SCAB with operation-related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds could be considered to be significant.

Local Emission Standards

California State 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm

California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm

California State 1-hour NO 2 standard of 0.25 ppm

3 SCAQMD 24-hour construction PM 10 standard of 10.4 µg/m

3 SCAQMD 24-hour operations PM 10 standard of 2.5 µg/m

Construction

Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be exhaust emissions from the use of tugboats and powered construction equipment and motor vehicle emissions associated with worker and materials haul trips.

Construction activities would consume diesel fuel and thus produce combustion by-products. These emissions were estimated using SCAQMD emissions factors. The equipment and truck assemblage is as presented by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers. With noted exceptions, emissions factors are based on factors included in the Handbook .

Bulkhead and Sand Retention Wall

As is typical with construction, certain pieces of equipment work together to accomplish a task. Bulkhead and sand retention wall installation would use a barge-mounted crane, a vibratory hammer, as many as two pumps (to move concrete), a backhoe, concrete cutting equipment, and a compressor to power metal cutting equipment. It is assumed that all of these pieces of equipment could be used on any given day of construction and that these pieces each operate 8 hours a day. Projected heavy equipment air emissions are calculated using the emissions data included in Tables A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D of the SCAQMD Handbook

The SCAQMD does not include vibratory hammers in its equipment listing. In this case, a survey of three manufacturer’s, including 17 vibratory hammer models, showed an average of 310 horsepower for vibratory hammers. Emission for the hammer were then calculated as a “miscellaneous” piece of equipment with 310 horsepower.

A tugboat would be used to position the barge and a crew boat would be required to transport as many as 10 workers per day. Each of these is assumed to operate 2 hours per day.

Tugboats can be powered by engines ranging in size from a few hundred horsepower to as much as 3,600 horsepower. This analysis assumes the use of an average value (i.e., 1,800 hp) in ascertaining vessel emissions. To derive tugboat emissions, fuel consumption must first be ascertained. Presented below are the specifics for marine vessel fuel consumption.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22

Fuel Type Diesel Fuel Density, lb/gal 7.12 Specific Fuel Consumption, lb/hp/hr 0.40 Idle Load Factor 0.20 Maneuver Load Factor 0.50 Cruise Load Factor 0.80

As noted, these operations are estimated to occur 2 hours per day and the tugboat, is assumed to operate primarily at idle. Based on a rating of 1,800 hp, the tugboat would consume approximately 20 gallons per hour at idle. Therefore, the tugboat could consume approximately 40 gallons per day. Tugboat emissions are based on data included in Table II-3.3, “Diesel Vessel Emission Factors by Operating Mode” of AP-42, A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors ( AP-42 ).

The crew boat is assumed to have 50 horsepower and also operate 2 hours per day. Due to the requirement for reduced speed in the bay, the boat is assumed to operate at a maneuver load factor (as opposed to cruise). Fuel consumption is then calculated at about 3 gallons per day. Crew boat CO, NOx, ROG, and SOx emissions are based on data included in AP-42 , Table II-3.5, “Average Emission Factors for Inboard Pleasure Craft.” PM 10 emissions are based on AP-42, Table II.7-1.

Emissions would also be generated by on-road vehicles. An estimated 80 truck loads of debris would be removed and 27 truck loads of concrete would be required over the construction period, estimated at six months. Based on 22 days of construction per month, this averages about one truckload per day.

The results of this analysis are included in Table III-1. Because most the work is to be carried out in the Bay over water, any dust and its attendant PM 10 would be negligible. Some dust and its attendant PM 10 , could be generated during construction at the sandy beach area. The URBEMIS2002 model distributed by the SCAQMD estimates that in the absence of any dust control measures, each acre disturbed generates 10 pounds of PM 10 per day. The sandy beach area is approximately 3,040 square feet or about 0.07 acre. Assuming no dust control, work in this area could produce as much as 0.7 pound per day of PM 10 from dust.

Bridge

Another component of the project is the replacement of the existing bridge. Bridge replacement would use a barge-mounted crane, an impact hammer, and concrete cutting equipment. A pump could also be used for the installation of new concrete. These pieces are each assumed to operate 8 hours a day. Again, heavy equipment emissions are calculated using the emissions data included in Tables A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D of the SCAQMD Handbook .

As with the vibratory hammer, the impact hammer is estimated at 310 horsepower and emissions were calculated as a “miscellaneous” piece of equipment.

A tugboat would be used to position the barge and a crew boat would be required to transport as many as 10 workers per day. Each of these is assumed to operate 2 hours per day. These emissions are calculated in accordance with the methodology presented for the bulkhead and sand retention wall construction.

Emissions would also be generated by on-road vehicles. Over the construction period, an estimated 20 truck loads of debris would be removed and 13 truck loads of concrete would be required (if the bridge is cast in place), or about one truck a day. The results of this analysis are also included in Table III-2.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 Note that the simultaneous construction of the bulkhead and sand retention wall in conjunction with that for the bridge could exceed the daily NOx threshold presenting a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation:

The analysis indicates that if the repair of the bulkheads and bridge occur simultaneously, daily NOx levels could exceed the applicable threshold resulting in a potentially significant impact. The following measures shall be required:

Only one vibratory hammer/impact hammer shall be used for no more than 8 hours on any given day.

Heavy equipment shall be tuned up and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment logs demonstrating proper maintenance shall be maintained at the site during construction activities for City inspection.

Heavy equipment shall not be allowed to remain idling for more than five minutes duration.

Trucks shall not be allowed to remain idling for more than two minutes duration.

Electric power shall be used to the exclusion of gasoline or diesel generators and compressors whenever feasible.

As demonstrated in Table III-2, if use of either of the two hammers is discontinued, daily NOx emissions would be reduced by 36.9 pounds per day. NOx for the combined operations would be reduced from 139.1 to 102.2 pounds per day. The other noted measures would further reduce exhaust NOx emissions (by as much as about 5 percent). Assuming a 5 percent reduction in heavy equipment emissions, but no reduction in mobile source emissions (i.e., the tugboats, crew boats, haul trucks, and worker trips), residual NOx levels are calculated at 97.9 pounds per day and the impact would be reduced to less than significant.

Localized Impacts

In addition to the mass daily threshold standards, project construction has the potential to raise localized ambient pollutant concentrations. This could present a significant impact if these concentrations were to exceed the ambient air quality standards at receptor locations.

Bay Isle and the surrounding area that would accommodate the barges and on-water construction equipment is approximately 5 acres in size. The SCAQMD provides screening tables for projects up to 5 acres in size ( Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size , SCAQMD February 2005). The screening tables indicate that in the Newport Beach area, the construction of projects that are five acres in size would not result in significant localized concentrations so long as CO does not exceed 950 pounds per day, NOx des not exceed 335 pounds per day, and PM 10 does not exceed 14 pounds per day. The data included in Table IIII-2 indicate that even if construction of the bulkheads and bridge were to occur simultaneously, emissions concentrations would not exceed the Localized Significance thresholds or ambient air quality standards and this impact is less than significant.

Operation

No impacts are associated with operation.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 Table III-2 Projected Construction Emissions (Lb/Day) 1

1 Equipment Type CO NOx ROG SOx PM 10 Bulkhead and Sand Retention Wall Backhoe 4.4 6.5 0.9 0.6 0.3 Crane 6.0 15.4 2.0 1.3 1.0 Hammer 30.8 36.9 4.6 3.1 2.3 Pumps 3.0 4.9 0.5 0.5 0.3 Concrete Saw 6.5 0.7 7.9 1.0 0.3 Compressor 1.6 2.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 Tugboat 9.5 6.1 7.4 1.2 1.0 Work Boats 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 Worker Travel 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Haul Truck 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Fugitive Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Total Daily Emissions 65.1 75.3 24.5 8.1 6.1 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No Bridge Crane 6.0 15.4 2.0 1.3 1.0 Hammer 30.8 36.9 4.6 3.1 2.3 Pumps 1.5 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 Concrete Saw 6.5 0.7 7.9 1.0 0.3 Tugboat 9.5 6.1 7.4 1.2 1.0 Work Boats 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 Worker Travel 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Haul Truck 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Daily Emissions 57.6 63.8 23.1 7.0 4.8 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No Combined Bulkhead, Sand Retention Wall, and Bridge Construction Bulkhead and Sand Retention Wall 65.1 75.3 24.5 8.1 6.1 Bridge 57.6 63.8 23.1 7.0 4.8 Total Daily Emissions 122.7 139.1 47.6 15.1 10.9 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No 1 Equipment use based on data presented by Moffatt and Nichol Engineers.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25

c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state AAQS Less than Potentially Significant Less than (including releasing emissions, which exceed Significant with Mitigation Significant No quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. As demonstrated above, the project is could exceed the construction threshold for NOx if bulkhead and bridge construction were to occur concurrently. The provided mitigation would reduce this impact to less than significant thereby reducing the cumulative contribution to less than significant.

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The noted SCAQMD screening tables indicate that construction activities would not create substantial concentrations above ambient air quality standards at sensitive locations and the impact is less than significant. No new emissions would be produced by the subsequent operation of the project and any operational impacts would also be less than significant.

e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from construction activities and from trucks bringing materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional “whiff” of diesel exhaust from trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are commonplace among watercraft and represent an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The marine resources of Lower Newport Bay include plants and animals of the developed channels, beaches, and hardscape of Newport Harbor.

Vegetation

Common forms of non-vascular plants in Newport Bay include colonial diatoms, bluegreen algae (cyanophytes), and green algae ( Ulva and Enteromorpha ). Subtidally, the green algae is replaced by

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 occasional sparse growth of deeper-occurring red algae (e.g., Gracilariopsis ) and brown algae (i.e., Colpomenia , Sargassum , and Cystoseira ). Algal mats occur year-round, but cover is most extensive during spring and summer when increased levels of nutrients and warmer water temperatures favor algal growth. Algae also co-exists and competes for bottom habitat and sunlight with eelgrass.

Eelgrass ( Zostera marina ) forms meadows on mudflats and subtidal sediment in bays, estuaries, and occasionally, in offshore marine sand bottom habitats. The meadows (and sub units called “beds” and “patches”) are also important habitat for invertebrates as a source of food and attachment, and for marine fishes that seek the shelter of the beds for protection and forage on invertebrates that colonize the eelgrass blades and sediments in and around eelgrass vegetation. Eelgrass displays a perennial growth habit in southern California. The typical growing season for season for shoots and leaves is between spring and summer. Above-ground growth declines in late fall and winter, although below-ground growth and vegetative spreading is still active. Generally, eelgrass bed resources diminish with increased distance from the Entrance Channel. In a November 2005 survey, a total of approximately 0.06 acre (0.02 hectare) of eelgrass vegetation was found around the shores of Bay Island at depths between –1 ft and –4 ft MLLW (Chambers Group 2006). Almost all of the eelgrass was on the south and east sides of the island. The only actual beds were on the eastern shore of the island, off the sand beach. The largest bed was approximately 0.04 acre in size and had a density of 58 turions per square meter. Several patches of eelgrass were observed off the south side of the island. No eelgrass was seen on the west side of Bay Island and only one small patch was noted on the north side. All of the eelgrass appeared to be outside the footprint of the proposed bulkhead and bridge replacements. Previous surveys also have determined that eelgrass surrounding Bay Island was confined to the south and east sides (Coastal Resources Management 2005). Figure VI-1 shows the location of eelgrass observed during the survey. Table 1 provides information about each of the eelgrass patches or beds observed.

Table VI-1 Bay Island Eelgrass

Patch/Bed Location #Shoots or Density Water Depth Size (ft MLLW) (acres) 1 117 54'14.85/33 36'27.29 5 1 0.00002 2 117 54'21.4/33 36'23.19 7 4 0.00028 3 117 54'19.16/33 36'22.46 17 4 0.00026 4 117 54'18.77/33 36'22.18 16 4 0.00038 5 117 54'16.56/33 36'21.8 8 4 0.00002 6 117 54'14.93/33 36'23.31 42 4 0.00025 7 117 54'14.74/33 36'23.75 16 4 0.00007 8 117 54'14.82/33 36'23.59 10 3 0.00028 9 117 54'14.54/33 36'24.68 68/m 2 1 to 4 0.01141 10 117 54'14.36/33 36'26.22 58/m 2 1 to 4 0.04095 11 117 54'14.27/33 36'26.74 77/m 2 2 0.00154 12 117 54'14.23/33 36'26.8 12 1 0.00009 Total 0.05555

Invertebrates

Over 300 species of benthic invertebrates have been identified from Newport Bay mudflats and subtidal channel sediments (Barnard and Reish 1959, Daugherty 1978, Dawson 1963, MBC and SCCWRP 1980, Seapy 1981, Ware 1985). Dominant organisms in both the epifauna and infaunal communities are species that occur commonly in the benthic and fouling communities of coastal embayments of southern California. The benthic invertebrates living in the tidal flats and in the channels of Newport Harbor are dominated by polychaete worms, clams, snails, and microcrustaceans (Seapy and Kitting 1978). Hardscape (e.g., bulkheads, pilings, boat docks, groins, and jetties) provides an attachment surface for many

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 1

12 11

7 8 2 6

3 4

Figure VI-1 Bay Isle Eelgrass Bed Location Map

0 40 80 120 160 Eelgrass Point Location Feet Meters 0 10 20 30 Eelgrass Bed 1:1,500

Image Source: USGS, 2003 Date: November 16, 2005 Z:\PROJ\3287_BayIsle\Eelgrass_loactions.mxd sessile marine animals and plants that would not be present in the Harbor in the absence of harbor development. The hardscape provided by these surfaces support populations of mussels, barnacles, sponges, and other types of invertebrates that together make up the “biofouling community”. The undersides of boat floats and docks are commonly colonized by green algae, barnacles, mussels, limpets, polychaete worms, moss animals (ectoprocts), and sea squirts (tunicates). Common forms of macroivertebrates observed living on eelgrass or in sediments of eelgrass beds include anemones (i.e., Diadumene , Pachycerianthus and Epiactis ), clams (i.e., Tagelus , Aequipecten , Mytilus ), snails, and sea slugs (i.e., Bulla , Navanax , and Aplysia ) (Chambers Group and Coastal Resources Management 1999, CRM 2006). Invertebrates observed in a recent survey of the marine environment around Bay Island included the tube anemone Pachycerianthus fimbriaus , the sea slug Chelidonera inermis , and the tunicates Ciona intestinalis, Styela plicata, and S. montereyensis . The slope at the outer portions of the survey area supported considerable numbers of the sea pen Acanthoptilum gracile (Chambers Group 2006).

Fishes

At least 78 species of fish have been identified in Newport Bay (USACE 1997, MEC Analytical Systems 1997, Hardy 1970, Allen 1976, MBC and SCCWRP 1980, Horn and Allen 1981, CDFG 1989, and Allen 1988). Additionally, the Bay is a known spawning ground for at least 10 species and a nursery area for juveniles of 33 species (White 1977). There are no State or Federal listed species of fish in Newport Bay, although the California halibut ( Paralichthys californicus ) is considered a sensitive species because of its sportsfish and commercial value.

Newport Bay marinas provide habitats that attract a variety of fishes and may exhibit a greater diversity of fishes than channel and mudflat habitats alone because both soft bottom associated fishes and rock- associated fishes inhabit these environments. Fishes observed in a recent survey of the marine habitat around Bay Island included California halibut ( Paralichthys californicus ) and diamond turbot ( Hypsopsetta guttulata ) (Chambers Group 2006). Forage fishes, such as topsmelt ( Atherinops affinis ), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus ), deepbody anchovy ( Anchoa compressa ), and slough anchovy ( Anchoa delicatissima ) characterize the water columns of both the shallower parts of the main channel and shallow subtidal area along the shoreline. Deeper parts of the main channel, as well as the larger side channels are inhabited mostly by residents and seasonal migrants, such as shiner surfperch ( Cymatogaster aggregata ), black surfperch (Embiotoca jacksoni ), diamond turbot, juvenile California halibut, kelp bass ( Paralabrax clanthratus ), spotted sand bass ( P. maculatofaciatus ), barred sand bass ( P. nebulifer ), yellowfin croaker (Umbrina roncador ), round string ray ( Urolophus halleri ), sanddab ( Citharichthys stigmaeus ), horny head turbot ( Pleuronichthys verticalis ), staghorn sculpin ( Leptocottus armatus ), and lizard fish ( Synodus lucioceps ).

Birds

The primary habitat in Lower Newport Bay is open water. Open water habitat is used by a number of bird groups including loons, grebes, pelicans, cormorants, herons, geese, ducks, mergansers, terns, gulls, and some species of raptors. Common species that forage in open water habitat include pied-billed grebe ( Podilymbus podiceps ), eared grebe ( Podiceps nigricollis ), western grebe ( Aechimorphus occidentalis ), California brown pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis ), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus ), mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ), ruddy duck ( Oxyura jamaicensis ), American coot (Fulica americana ), lesser scaup ( Aythya affinis ), bufflehead ( Bucephala albecia ), surf scoter ( Melanitta perspicillata ), western gull ( Larus occidentalis ), ring-billed gull ( L. delawarensis ), elegant tern ( Sterna elegans ), Forster’s tern ( S. forsteri ), California least tern ( Sterna antillarum browni ), and black skimmer (Rhynchops niger ) (MEC 1997; N. Davis, personal observation). The small beach on the east side of Bay Island may at times be used by shorebirds, although the greatest shorebird use in Newport Bay occurs on the mudflats of Upper Newport Bay.

Sensitive Species

One listed plant species and 7 listed bird species are known to occur in Newport Bay. However, many of them are associated marsh, intertidal mudflat, or upland habitat and would not likely occur in the project area. Listed species that could occur in the project areas are discussed below.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 Table IV-1 Listed Species

Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Probability of Occurrence Plants Codylanthus maritimus Salt marsh bird’s beak SE, FE High salt marsh Absent Birds Pelecanus occidentalis California brown pelican SE, FE Open water High Rallus longirostris levipes Light-footed clapper rail SE, FE Low- and mid- salt Low marsh Sterna antillarum browni California least tern SE, FE Open water High Charadrius alexandrinus Western snowy plover FT Mudflat, salt flats Moderate nivosus Polioptila californica California gnatcatcher FT Coastal sage scrub Low Falco peregrinus anatum Peregrine falcon SE Coastal areas Moderate Passerculus sandwichensis Belding’s savannah SE Salt marsh Low beldingii sparrow Laterallus jamaicensis California black rail ST Salt marsh Low coturniculus

California Brown Pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis californica ) – California brown pelicans occur year- round in Newport Bay. Numbers tend to be lower in late spring and early summer when the birds are nesting on offshore islands and higher in late summer and fall when flocks are augmented by young birds. Brown pelicans forage on fish in the open waters of Lower Newport Bay. They can frequently be seen on piers, docks, mooring buoys, and pilings.

California Least Tern ( Sterna antillarum browni ) – The California least tern is a seasonal resident in Newport Bay from April through early September. Two man-made islands were constructed in the uppermost basin of Upper Newport Bay in the early 1980s to provide nesting habitat for least terns. Nesting has occurred on one of the islands. California least terns forage throughout the open water areas of Newport Bay.

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum ) – The American peregrine falcon was removed from the Federal list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on August 25, 1999, although it currently remains on the state endangered species list. The American peregrine is uncommon in abundance, but regular in its occurrence at Newport Bay. No breeding occurs within the Bay itself, but falcons have nested on high-rise buildings adjacent to the Bay (Gallagher 1997). This species feeds almost exclusively on other birds, particularly migrant and/or wintering shorebirds and waterfowl. Peregrine falcons would be expected to most frequently forage on the large flocks of shorebirds and waterfowl in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, but they might occasionally forage on waterfowl or gulls in the Lower Bay.

Western Snowy Plover ( Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus ) – Snowy plovers do not nest in Newport Bay, but they may occaissionally forage on the Bay's mudflats and beaches. Snowy plovers potentially could forage on the beach on the east side of Bay Island.

California Species of Special Concern – A number of water birds designated as California Species of Special Concern occur in open water areas of Newport Bay. Species of Special Concern are considered to be declining, but have no legal status. Common loons ( Gavia immer ), double-crested cormorant, osprey ( Pandion haliaetus ), California gull ( Larus californicus ), elegant terns, and black skimmers are piscivorous and may forage in the project area.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or Less than Potentially Significant Less than by the California Department of Fish and Game Significant with Mitigation Significant No or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project would temporarily disturb the water’s edge along Bay Island, as well as areas temporarily utilized by construction equipment along Bay Island and the existing and proposed pedestrian bridges. The California brown pelican and the double-crested cormorant potentially could be displaced temporarily from roosting on top of nearby docks during construction activities. These birds would be able to roost on the docks during the night because work would only occur during daylight hours. The temporary loss of a small amount of roosting habitat would be less than significant. In addition, the pelican and other special status water birds that typically forage in the project area may avoid the waters in the project vicinity during construction activities due to indirect effects, such as turbidity and noise. However, due to the availability of other suitable foraging areas in the immediate vicinity, these impacts should be insignificant. The California least tern does not nest in the Lower Bay, but potentially forages in the project area. The Western snowy plover does not breed in Newport Bay and is not likely to forage within the project area because there is minimal suitable intertidal habitat and the project area is one of high human activity and disturbance. The California least tern and snowy plover both would most likely avoid the project area during construction and forage in suitable nearby areas and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The American peregrine falcon does not breed in the Lower Bay, but may forage in the area. The peregrine falcon typically forages in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve rather than the project area. Therefore, impacts to the peregrine falcon would be less than significant. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the Less than Potentially Significant Less than California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Significant with Mitigation Significant No Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project would affect a minor amount of marine habitat and does not include any riparian habitat. There would be no impact to riparian habitat. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, Less than Potentially Significant Less than etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological Significant with Mitigation Significant No interruption, or other means? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project would not affect any federally protected wetlands. The entire shoreline is bulk- headed with the exception of the sandy beach along the eastern side of the island and the small sandy beach along the western side in between a break in the bulkhead wall. Construction of the new bulkheads and pedestrian bridge would involve bulkhead and bridge removal, bulkhead installation, and construction of the pedestrian bridge. Construction would impact a small area of subtidal sand bottom habitat. This habitat falls under the designation of “Other Waters of the United States,” and placement of the structures would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. An estimated 0.016 acre (685 sq ft) of subtidal habitat would be lost due to bulkhead construction and an additional 0.002 acre (89 sq ft) of subtidal habitat would be lost due to fill of the sand retention wall. The loss in subtidal habitat would be compensated for by the creation of new subtidal

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 habitat at a 4:1 ratio at along the southern edge of the sandy beach on the eastern side of the island, equaling approximately 0.071 acre (3,096 sq ft). The habitat that would be lost is a shady disturbed area between docks and boats. No eelgrass was observed in or near the construction area in recent surveys (Chambers Group 2006, Coastal Resources Management 2005). The subtidal area that would be created to mitigate for the impacts of bulkhead extension is expected to have greater ecological value than the area that would be lost. The new habitat would be gently sloping and would not be between boats and docks. Eelgrass grows offshore from this area, and eelgrass would be expected to colonize the new habitat.

There may be a temporary loss of encrusting organisms from the removal of the existing bulkheads and other hardscape during construction. The benthic invertebrate community around Bay Island is adapted to the periodic disturbance of boats and other recreational vehicles. Replacement of bulkheads may crush sessile and slow moving benthic organisms. More mobile organisms, such as crabs and fishes, would be able to avoid the added structures. When construction materials (i.e., bulkheads and bridge pilings) are being placed on the bayfloor, they would temporarily resuspend sediments. Resuspended sediments may displace infaunal organisms and clog the feeding appendages of suspension feeders. This resuspension of sediment would be of short duration and limited to a small area. A similar biological community would be expected to recolonize the Bay Island area within 1 to 2 years on the newly constructed and remaining existing structures.

Although the new bridge would shade a slightly larger area over the water (an additional 288 sq ft) than the existing design, the new bridge design would include fewer piles and thus has less impact to the subtidal and benthic environments. No eelgrass was found within the proposed footprints of the new bulkheads and pedestrian bridge in the recent eelgrass survey and eelgrass has not been found in the construction footprint in earlier surveys. Construction activity is not expected to impact eelgrass. Silt curtains would be used to minimize turbidity in the adjacent subtidal areas. Due to the temporary nature of the project, and with the implementation of the preceding best management practice, impacts to the habitat within the project area would be less than significant.

d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native Less than Potentially Significant Less than resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede Significant with Mitigation Significant No the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction of the walkway would temporarily disturb a small area of subtidal and intertidal habitat. The aquatic habitat around Bay Island is not located in any important fish or wildlife movement corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Marine organisms may avoid the immediate vicinity of construction activities when operations are taking place. The noise and activity of construction may alter the behavior of fishes or cause them to avoid the construction area temporarily. Ford and Platter-Rieger (1986) studied the reaction of schooling fishes to pile driving. Pile driving had no apparent effect on the behavior of topsmelt (Atherinops affinis ). However, northern anchovy exposed to pile driving sounds at close range altered their behavior and seemed agitated. There was a consistent tendency for anchovy to move away from the main pile driving sound source. The disturbance to fishes from pile-driving and other in-water construction activities would be expected to be short term. The impacts of this temporary avoidance would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, Less than Potentially Significant Less than such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project would not conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.2.3-11 that refers to the mitigation for filling of Newport Bay waters. Filing of 0.08 acres of Bay waters would be mitigated at a 4:1 ratio by the creation of .071 acres of new soft bottom habitat on the eastern side of Bay Island. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.2.5-1 because it would avoid impacts to eelgrass.

f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved Less than Potentially Significant Less than local, regional, or state habitat conservation Significant with Mitigation Significant No plan? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The proposed project is not within the reserve system of the Coastal Subregion of the Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts to Bay waters would be mitigated onsite as described above.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

First developed around 1904, Bay Island is a 26-lot single-family residential (currently developed with 23 residential units) private island in the Newport Channel. Access to Bay Island is via a pedestrian bridge at the terminus of Island Avenue. An original wooden bridge was built in 1910, and the current bridge, constructed in 1958, is made of pre-cast concrete panels over pre-stressed concrete piles and cast-in-place concrete cap. The existing bridge is load-limited to and wide enough only for pedestrians and golf carts. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource Less than Potentially Significant Less than as defined in §15064.5? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The existing bridge was constructed in 1958-1959 and has been reinforced for structural conditions over the years. The proposed project is located in sediment and is subjected to shifting intertidal influence. Due to the age of the bridge, it could be considered a historical resource. Steps were taken to obtain further information on the architect of the bridge and a more detailed history of the bridge. Bill Hendricks from the Sherman Library and Joan T. Seaver Kurze, author of Insular Connections on Bay Island, were contacted. Messages were left for the President of Bay Island Board Mary Ann Emett, and Homeowners Association President Dale Klein.

Mitigation Measure

It is recommended that the bridge be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms, with accompanying photographs.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 33

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological Less than Potentially Significant Less than resource pursuant to §15064.5? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

According to the Newport Beach General Plan Update (1974), archaeological resources have been recorded within Newport Beach, adjacent to and in the region of the Upper Bay. The proposed project is located in sediment and is subjected to shifting intertidal influence. Due to the level of past disturbance, including installation of the existing bulkheads and boat slips/piers, implementation of the proposed project would not impact archaeological resources because none are known to exist on, or adjacent to, the project site. If resources are discovered during construction activities, work would be required to stop and the project would be required to retain a qualified archaeological monitor.

c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique Less than Potentially Significant Less than geologic feature? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The Newport Beach General Plan (1974) reports that paleontological resources occur along the bluffs of the east shore of the bay and adjoining foothills. Due to the level of past disturbance, including development of the bulkheads, adjacent individual boat dock piers, and bridge, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts.

d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal Less than Potentially Significant Less than cemeteries? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

Due to the level of past disturbance, the proposed project would not result in impacts to the project site, as no human remains are known to exist on, or adjacent to, to the site.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

First developed around 1904, the current bridge was constructed in 1958, made of pre-cast concrete panels over pre-stressed concrete piles and cast-in-place concrete cap. The existing bridge is load- limited to and wide enough only for pedestrians and golf carts. The bridge’s load bearing capacity is only 2,500 pounds.

Cash & Associates and Bluewater Consultants both found seismic concerns with regard to the bridge and bulkhead. They found that they had spalling, rebar rusting, and that the temporary repairs conducted over the years, were not able to continue to meet loading requirements given the area’s potential for seismic activity. Earthquake damage to the bridge would probably result in loss of utility services to Bay Island, and re-establishment of these utilities could take several months.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Significant with Mitigation Significant No Special Publication 42. Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The nearest active fault to the site with the potential for surface fault rupture is the offshore portion of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, located approximately two miles south of the project area. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone established for an on-shore portion of the Newport-Inglewood fault is located approximately 4.5 miles to the northwest of the project area. The General Plan identifies a boundary of a small zone of potential ground rupture, defined by a 500-foot setback on either side of a potential fault feature (City of Newport Beach 2005). These pose little potential for surface rupture, and do not pose significant impacts to the proposed project either during construction or for operation. Impacts would be considered to be less than significant.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

Because of the nearby active Newport-Inglewood fault zone and seismically active nature of the greater southern California region, the project could be subjected to strong ground shaking during an earthquake. Cash & Associates and Bluewater Consultants both found seismic concerns with regard to the bridge and bulkhead. They found that they had spalling, rebar rusting, and that the temporary repairs conducted over the years, were not able to continue to meet loading requirements given the area’s potential for seismic activity. Earthquake damage to the bridge would probably result in loss of utility services to Bay Island, and re-establishment of these utilities could take several months. The new bridge and bulkhead would mitigate those potential seismic issues. The new bridge would be engineered to meet current seismic loading criteria and constructed in compliance to current building codes. Any impacts from seismic shaking would be considered to be less than significant.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The project would be constructed in an area known by the City of Newport Beach to have liquefaction potential (City of Newport Beach 2006). The City of Newport Beach’s Draft Safety Element (2006) has delineated the project site as having the potential for liquefaction. Geotechnical evaluation found deficiencies with the bulkhead and bridge that could result in further damage to those structures if not addressed (see VI.a.ii, above). During construction, the potential for liquefaction from the vibratory

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 hammer would be reduced by use of a hydraulic press, if necessary. With construction of the new bulkhead and bridge, potential impacts to properties as a result of liquefaction is reduced to less than significant.

iv) Landslides? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The proposed project is not within an area that is considered by the City of Newport Beach’s Draft Public Safety Element (2006) to be potentially prone to landslides. Therefore, no impacts are likely to occur.

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

Very minimal earthwork would be associated with the project. There is a potential for erosion, due to tidal action, along the Southern bulkhead during construction, as the old bulkhead would be removed before the new one is installed. Erosion would be minimized by constructing a temporary sheetpile wall behind the existing wall and excavating the material between the two prior to removal. After the new wall is constructed, the excavated material would be backfilled before the temporary wall is removed. There is no potential for significant impacts from surface erosion.

c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially Less than Potentially Significant Less than result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral Significant with Mitigation Significant No spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Refer to VI a) iii and iv, above. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Less than Potentially Significant Less than Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or Significant with Mitigation Significant No property? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The proposed project site has been mapped to have a Category 3 rating for expansive and collapsible soils in the City of Newport Beach Safety Element (1975). This rating means that expansive and collapsible soils are moderately to highly unlikely to occur. No impacts are likely to occur.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 36 e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where Less than Potentially Significant Less than sewers are not available for the disposal of Significant with Mitigation Significant No wastewater? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Operation

Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not applicable to the project, and no impacts would occur.

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine Less than Potentially Significant Less than transport, use, or disposal of hazardous Significant with Mitigation Significant No materials? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The project does not propose to store, distribute, or dispose of any acutely hazardous materials. Common materials used during construction include concrete, construction lubricants, and diesel fuel. See VII.b, below for discussion of upset or accident conditions during construction. With prevention and management programs in place, impacts from construction-related spills of hazardous materials and considered less than significant. Long-term operations would not use any hazardous materials.

b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions Less than involving the release of hazardous materials into Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No the environment? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

The project would only use diesel fuels for construction equipment. No other hazardous materials would be associated with construction. There is low potential for diesel fuel to spill into the waterway. This is further discussed under Hydrology/Water Quality. With prevention and management programs in place, including implementation of BMPs, impacts from construction-related spills of hazardous materials would be considered less than significant.

Operation

No hazardous materials would be associated with operation.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, Less than Potentially Significant Less than substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an Significant with Mitigation Significant No existing or proposed school? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the proposed project site. The closest school is Newport Elementary located approximately one mile to the west of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a Less than Potentially Significant Less than significant hazard to the public or the Significant with Mitigation Significant No environment? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There would be no hazard to the public or the environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use Less than Potentially Significant Less than airport, would the project result in a safety hazard Significant with Mitigation Significant No for people residing or working in the project area? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The project is not located within an airport land use plan area. The closest airport is John Wayne-Orange County Airport, located approximately four miles away. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, Less than would the project result in a safety hazard for Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No people residing or working in the project area? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The closest airstrip to the project site would be John Wayne-Orange County Airport, located approximately four miles away. There would not be an increase in hazards to people residing or working the project area related to the proposed project. No impacts would occur. g) Would the project impair implementation of or Less than physically interfere with an adopted emergency Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Operation

The City of Newport Beach updates its Emergency Management Plan every year. This plan includes ways to prepare and manage people and resources in the event of an emergency. The proposed project would actually change the width of the bridge to allow for the passage of emergency vehicles onto Bay Isle making emergency response faster. This would be a beneficial impact to the emergency response plan due to increased access. No impacts would occur.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 38 h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are Less than Potentially Significant Less than adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences Significant with Mitigation Significant No are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

There are no wildlands in the project area. There would be no impact.

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Tides in the project area are semi-diurnal, with two high and two low tides each day of unequal height (mixed tides). The mean tide range in Newport Bay is 3.7 feet (1.1 m), the mean tide height is 2.8 ft (0.8 m), and the Mean Higher High Tide level is +5.4 ft (+1.6 m). The tidal range with in Newport Harbor can vary as much as 9 ft (2.7 m), between approximately –1.8 ft to + 7.2 ft (-0.5 to +2.2 m) during storms, excessive high tides, and storm runoff in to the Bay. Current speeds vary, but typical speeds are from 0.5 to 1.8 ft/s (0.3 to 1.1 knots), although maximum ebb currents can reach 4 ft/s (2.5 knots) during a 10,000 cfs flow period (USACE 1997).

Waves in Newport Bay originate from 1) open ocean swells traveling down the Entrance Channel during storms generated in the southern hemisphere that can reach several feet high, and 2) wind activity through the Bay generating waves and winds large enough to cause damage to boats, piers, and docks. Largest wind waves are generated as a result of north winds generated during Santa Ana conditions, which are capable of creating waves up to 2 ft (0.6 m) high and causing shoreline erosion (Stevenson and Emery 1958) and periodic El Nino storm events that generate waves and winds large enough to cause damage to boats, piers, and docks.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to list waterbodies that require additional means to achieve and maintain water quality standards. Lower Newport Bay is on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for metals, pesticides, and priority organics (RWQCB 2003). Potential sources for these pollutants/stressors are urban runoff/storm sewers, contaminated sediments, boatyards, agriculture, and unknown nonpoint sources (RWQCB 2003).

a) Would the project violate any water quality Less than standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Newport Beach maintains a MS4 permit under the NPDES. This permit requires an aggressive Water Quality Ordinance (Ord. 97-26) that requires the usage of “best management practices” (BMPs) in commercial and development-related activities. As a best management practice, silt curtains would be used to minimize turbidity in the adjacent subtidal areas during construction activities. In addition, in accordance with Policy 4.3.2-22 of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan, the proposed project would incorporate best management practices designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. Therefore, the project would not impact any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing Less than Potentially Significant Less than land uses or planned uses for which permits have Significant with Mitigation Significant No been granted)? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The project does not propose the withdrawal of groundwater. The project site is located within Newport Bay and adjacent to residential communities that are currently served by water supply lines. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater supplies would result from project implementation.

c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or Less than Potentially Significant Less than river, in a manner which would result in substantial Significant with Mitigation Significant No erosion or siltation on- or offsite? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed bulkheads and bridge would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns. Construction of the project would alter drainage patterns minimally from creating the new drainage system along the bulkheads and the new bridge outside of the existing footprint. The new drainage system along the bulkhead includes one-way Tideflex valves that allow discharge of dry weather and storm runoff into the bay, but prevent saltwater intrusion. At each of the runoff discharge outlets, a basket-type filtration unit would prevent debris from being discharged into the bay. The existing bridge has no drainage features and stormwater simply runs off the sides of the bridge and into the bay waters. The new bridge would be designed to channel runoff into a trench drain on the island end of the bridge and into the existing storm drain system on the peninsula end. No runoff water would discharge off the sides of the bridge and into the bay for the new design. The implementation of sound engineering would prevent the disruption of drainage patterns. Therefore, less than significant impacts to existing drainage patterns would result from project implementation. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount Less than Potentially Significant Less than of surface runoff in a manner that would result in Significant with Mitigation Significant No flooding on- or offsite? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Existing drainage patterns would not be impacted in a substantial way. Surface runoff would be minimal. For additional discussion, see Hydrology Impact VIII.c. Construction is considered to have less than significant impacts to existing drainage patterns.

e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or Less than Potentially Significant Less than planned stormwater drainage systems or provide Significant with Mitigation Significant No substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Because the new bulkheads are mainly within, or are in close approximation to, the existing footprint, they would not add substantial amounts of runoff water to the existing stormwater drainage system. The new bridge would cover a slightly larger area than the existing design. However, this addition would contribute

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 minor amounts of water to the existing runoff and would be incorporated into the existing drainage system rather than discharging off of the sides of the bridge. Runoff from the project would not exceed the existing capacity of stormwater drainage systems. Less than significant impacts would result to stormwater capacity.

f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade Less than water quality? Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Impacts to water quality would mainly be a result from the construction of the project. Turbidity from construction activities, such as bulkhead replacement and pile driving, may potentially impact water quality temporarily through the resuspension of sediments. Turbidity plumes are expected to be small and of short duration. Diesel fuels could potentially affect water quality if construction equipment were to leak, or in the event of a spill. Construction BMPs would be implemented to reduce the potential for water quality impacts. As a best management practice, silt curtains would be used to minimize turbidity in the adjacent subtidal areas during construction activities. Construction equipment also will be checked regularly for potential leaks. Once the project is built, water quality is not expected to be degraded to a significant level. Impacts that would substantially degrade water quality are considered to be less than significant. g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Less than Potentially Significant Less than Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or Significant with Mitigation Significant No other flood hazard delineation map? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

According to the Public Safety Element for the City of Newport Beach, the project site is not within a 100-year flood zone. It is under zone X, which is a designation for areas not within the flood zone. The closest 100-year flood hazard area would be considered to be the San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash located northeast of the project site. The proposed elevation of the top of the concrete cap at +9 ft MLLW is in compliance with the Public Works Department standard for bulkhead elevation of at least 8.67 ft (NAVD 88), which would improve protection from floods to existing housing. No significant impacts to the flooding of housing would result.

h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood Less than hazard area structures that would impede or Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No redirect flood flows? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

According to the Public Safety Element for the City of Newport Beach, the project site is not within a 100-year flood zone. It is under zone X, which is a designation for areas not within the flood zone. The closest 100-year flood hazard area would be considered to be the San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash located northeast of the project site. The proposed elevation of the top of the concrete cap at +9 ft MLLW is in compliance with the Public Works Department standard for bulkhead elevation of at least 8.67 ft (NAVD 88). No impacts would occur that would impede or redirect flood flows.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving Less than Potentially Significant Less than flooding, including flooding as a result of the Significant with Mitigation Significant No failure of a levee or Dam? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project site would not expose people to flooding beyond existing conditions. The project site is not within a 100-year flood zone. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. j) Would the project expose people to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project involves the replacement of existing structures. This project would not expose people to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow beyond existing conditions. The potential for a tsunami to occur along the southern California coast is considered to be moderate. However, for the Orange County coastline in particular, near-shore tsunamis should be considered to be worst-case scenarios, as they have the potential to cause high runups that would impact the coastline with almost no warning. According to the Local Coastal Plan, the probability for a damaging seiche to occur is considered low and is not considered to be a significant hazard. Because the proposed project would not increase the potential for people to be exposed to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow beyond existing conditions, no impact is expected.

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Bay Island is comprised of 23 single-family residences and a private beach. The bridge connects Bay Island to Balboa Peninsula, which is comprised of single and medium density single family residences proximate to the bridge connection at Island Avenue.

No land use plan changes would occur from the project. The current easement allows the new bridge to be built anywhere within the projection of the Island Street right-of-way. Only one bridge may exist at one time, except during construction of a replacement. a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Operation

The propose improvements would not divide an established community. It would increase emergency access and reduce golf carts from driving on sidewalks. No impacts would result.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 42 b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for Less than Potentially Significant Less than the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an Significant with Mitigation Significant No environmental effect? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Operation

The bridge would be realigned, and thus would be moved closer to the west and the resident on that corner. However, there is sufficient land available and the bridge would be within its existing easement. The current easement allows the new bridge to be built anywhere within the projection of the Island Street right-of-way. Only one bridge may exist at one time, except during construction of a replacement. No changes in land use or zoning would be required.

The proposed project would be in compliance with the goals of the City of Newport Beach Draft General Plan Safety Element (City of Newport Beach 2006) and the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan (2006). Policy S 4.6 and Goal S 3 respectively, encourages the maintenance and upgrading of facilities that have the potential to be affected severely from seismic activity and seeks ways to avoid the effects of coastal erosion to people and property. The existing bridge is not within ADA compliance and therefore eligible to be reconstructed to follow this policy. The existing bulkheads are in a deteriorating state and therefore need to be repaired. This would be consistent with Goal S 3, flood impacts, from the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed project would be in compliance with existing land uses, policies, and regulations and would result in no impacts to these topics. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community Less than conservation plan? Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Operation

The project is over the Newport Bay water area. The Newport Harbor contains Eelgrass, which is a plant community that provides habitat for invertebrates and other marine fish. The Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan (2006) has developed policies that help to protect Eelgrass populations. Policy 4.1.4-3 relates directly to the proposed project where projects that “Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other structures that extend over the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows. Encourage the use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and the growth of eelgrass.” Other structures in this case are considered to be the bridge component of the proposed project. The Local Coastal Plan (2006) recognizes that protection of the harbor resource is necessary and that dredging and harbor related construction is necessary. With that in mind, eelgrass is mitigated in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation policy. A complete assessment of eelgrass is included in the Biology, Section IV. The assessment for and mitigation for eelgrass is in compliance with this mitigation policy.

X. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value Less than to the region and the residents of the state? Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The project would be over the water of Newport Bay. There would be no impact to mineral resources.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site Less than Potentially Significant Less than delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or Significant with Mitigation Significant No other land use plan? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The project would be over the water of Newport Bay. There would be no impact to mineral resources.

XI. NOISE

The City of Newport Beach is subject to noise from a myriad of sources. The major source of noise is from mobile sources and most specifically, operations associated with John Wayne Airport and traffic traveling through the City on its various roadways. Noise associated with traffic on Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard dominate the project area along the north side of Newport Bay. Aircraft operations associated with the operation of John Wayne Airport also contribute to this noise. Additionally, the waterfront area is subject to noise associated with boating activities.

Newport Beach has the largest small boat harbor in Southern California. Thousands of boats operate near noise-sensitive residential uses that border much of Newport Bay, and noise associated with these boats can be a problem to these residences.

Existing Noise Levels

The project would be constructed in the residential areas located on Bay Isle and at the Balboa Peninsula in the area to receive the new bridge. The most proximate residential homes could be located as close as about 25 feet from construction activities.

To determine ambient levels in the project area, noise monitoring was conducted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006. The field survey noted that local noise is generally characterized by aircraft operations associated with John Wayne Airport, and from vehicle traffic on the proximate roadways.

Noise monitoring was performed using a Quest Technologies Model 2900 Type 2 Integrating/logging Sound Level Meter. The unit meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S1.4- 1983 for Type 2, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2, and IEC Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2 sound level meters. The unit was field calibrated at 10:25 a.m. using a Quest Technologies QC-10 calibrator immediately prior to the readings. The calibration was then rechecked at 10:46 a.m. after the reading and no meter “drift” was noted. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The unit meets the requirements of ANSI Standard S1.4-1984 and IEC Standard 942: 1988 for Class 1 equipment.

The study included one noise reading obtained at the entrance to the bridge. The Leq, Lmin, Lmax, L 02 , L08 , L 25 , and L 50 values were recorded. As discussed above, the Leq value is representative of the equivalent noise level or logarithmic average noise level obtained over the measurement period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. The L 02 , L 08 , L 25 , and L 50 represent the values that are exceeded 2, 8, 25, and 50 percent of the time or 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes per hour if the readings were extrapolated out to an hour’s duration. Reading location is included in Figure XI-1. Results of this survey are included in Table XI-1. The reading is summarized below.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 44 Figure XI-1 Noise Level Monitoring Location

Table XI-1 Existing Noise Level Measurements

Monitoring Leq L02 L08 L25 L50 Lmin Lmax Location (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) NR-1 60.1 69.5 64.6 59.1 53.4 49.7 74.2 1 The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying sound level. The L 02 , L 08 , L 25 , and L 50 are the levels that are exceeded 2, 8, 25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. Alternatively, these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes during a 1-hour period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum root- mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second.

NR-1 – This reading was obtained over the dirt area approximately 30 feet north of the Island Avenue curb line, and about 20 feet west of the existing bridge. The most proximate single-family residential units on the Balboa Peninsula are located at the north end of Island Avenue and noise at the monitored location would be indicative of these units. The 15-minute reading began at 10:28 a.m. Ambient noise was primarily from aircraft taking off from John Wayne International Airport, but two helicopter overflights and background road traffic along Balboa Boulevard and Island Avenue also added to the level. Additionally, the area to the west of the metered location is planted with lawn and bushes, and sprinkler noise was observed. Passing people engaged in conversation and ducks feeding on the adjacent lawn were also noted. Finally, background construction activities along Lindo Avenue could be heard.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or Less than Potentially Significant Less than noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other Significant with Mitigation Significant No agencies? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

The proposed project is located within the City of Newport Beach and is thus subject to the General Plan and noise ordinances incorporated therein.

The noise ordinance recognizes that construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a 24-hour community noise standard and these regulations are included in Section 10.28.040 “Construction Activity-Noise Regulations.” Here, the City places no performance standards or noise limitations on construction other than to restrict loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity of the construction, to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays if it disturbs or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity.

These hours are requisite and project construction is to comply with these days and hours. All construction activities will adhere to the Code ensuring that their construction impacts remain less than significant.

Operation

See XI. C. for discussion of post-construction noise. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration Less than Potentially Significant Less than or groundborne noise levels? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

An aspect of construction is its accompanying vibration. Excessive groundborne vibration is typically caused by activities such as blasting or the use of pile drivers during construction. Construction would not require blasting activities, but pile hammering is proposed and could produce vibration that may be felt at nearby land uses. These vibrations pose not only a nuisance, but also a risk to proximate structures.

While the City has no vibration standards, Caltrans sets the criterion level for pile driving at between 0.2 and 2 inches per second. A reasonable worst-case scenario assumes the use of the 0.2 inch per second criterion. Caltrans presents the vibration produced by a 50,000 foot-pound force with distance for both clayey and sandy/silt soils as a function of distance. No data is presented for vibratory hammers or for driving piles into marine substrates.

Caltrans indicates that the distance to the 0.2 inch per second minimum criterion falls at approximately 50 feet. Due to the proximity of the various residents, vibration related to pile-driving activities is considered as potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure

The construction contractor shall notify all property owners and tenants located within 200 feet of the project site as to any proposed pile driving activities and days and hours of operation. Prior to pile driving

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 46 activities, the construction contractor shall inspect all structures within 50 feet of pile driving operations to document existing characteristics of the structures. If damage to these structures occurs as a result of construction activities, the property owner shall be financially compensated by the construction contractor to remediate damages. Furthermore, the construction contractor shall issue printed fliers to all property owners located within 200 feet of the pile driving effort outlining the proposed construction as well as methods to reduce breakage of dishes, curios, etc. These provisions shall be placed on all construction contract documents.

These measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant.

Operation

See XI. C. for discussion of post-construction noise. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Less than Potentially Significant Less than project vicinity above levels existing without the Significant with Mitigation Significant No project? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Operation

The project includes the replacement of bulkheads and bridge. Localized noise along the bridge, such as people engaged in conversation, would occur, but would not be expected to exceed that from the use of the existing bridge and any potential impact is less than significant.

d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Less than Potentially Significant Less than project vicinity above levels existing without the Significant with Mitigation Significant No project? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction of the proposed project is completed.

Two types of noise impacts could occur during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. The number of construction workers would be minimal (no more than about 20 on any given day). Furthermore, the number of heavy truck deliveries is limited averaging only about two loads per day (150 loads over a period of about 6 months). Even though there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential with passing trucks (a maximum noise level of 86 dBA at 50 feet), the increase in noise would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over a 24-hour period, and would therefore have a less than significant impact on noise receptors along the truck routes.

The second type of impact is related to noise generated by pile hammering and construction activities and local residents could be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction activities are typically carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table XI-2 lists typical

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessment at a distance of 50 feet. While a vibratory hammer would be used to set sheetpilings, an impact hammer could be used to set concrete piles.

Percussive pile drivers are among the loudest of the heavy equipment pieces. However, in this case, the piles would be of a relatively shallow depth. Furthermore, the piles are to be set into marine sediment so the substrate would be softer than would normally be encountered in pile driving. As such, pile hammering noise would be expected to be toward the lower end of the noise scale with Leq noise levels on the order of 85 dBA as measured at a distance of 50 feet. At a distance of just 25 feet, exterior noise at the nearest residents could reach levels of about 91 dBA Leq. Interior noise levels would be reduced by about 20 dBA with doors and windows closed. Interior levels would remain well below the OSHA standards for occupational noise exposure.

In all cases during the vast majority of the construction period, noise levels would be 20 to 30 dBA lower as the construction effort would continually move along the length of the project such that the noted proximate distances are continually increased, further reducing noise. In some cases, slipped boats could create partial blocking of noise for first-floor habitable rooms.

This range of noise levels is considered acceptable during daytime hours. Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would increase during construction phase, but would drop considerably after construction of the proposed facility is completed.

The City includes general provisions for construction. City Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays if it disturbs or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. Construction would be subject to the requisite hours included in the Noise Ordinance ensuring that the impact remains less than significant.

Table XI-2 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment

Type of Equipment Range of Sound Levels Suggested Sound Measured (dBA at 50 Levels for Analysis feet) (dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-lb/blow 81 to 96 93 Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jack Hammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 68 to 80 77 Dozers 85 to 90 88 Tractor 77 to 82 80 Front-End Loaders 86 to 90 88 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 86 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86 Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, BBN 1987.

Operation

See XI. C. for discussion of post-construction noise.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 48 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing Less than Potentially Significant Less than or working in the project area to excessive noise Significant with Mitigation Significant No levels? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

At about four miles to the northeast, John Wayne International Airport represents the nearest public use airfield. The project is outside of the airport’s 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. As such, no significant impacts are associated with aircraft noise. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or Less than working in the project area to excessive noise Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No levels? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not be impacted by private airport operations. No significant impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary.

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

The project would be construction on Bay Island in Lower Newport Bay in Newport Beach, CA. Bay Isle is a private residential community consisting of 23 single-family homes on the island. South of the island lies single-family residential homes located approximately 100 feet away. In addition, residential single family communities exist across the bay to the north, west, and northeast. These communities are across the Newport Harbor and exist on Harbor Island, Lido Island, and Balboa Island respectively.

a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or Less than Potentially Significant Less than indirectly (for example, through extension of roads Significant with Mitigation Significant No or other infrastructure)? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project would not induce population growth. It does not result directly or indirectly in new homes or businesses or extension of roads or other infrastructure. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of Less than replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project does not include a residential component. The project would not result in displacement of existing housing.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of Less than replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project does not include a residential component. The project would not result in displacement of any portion of the population.

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Parks? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Other public facilities? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

No construction impact would occur that would affect public services. The new bridge would be constructed before the old bridge is demolished, so no impacts/disruptions to services would occur.

Operation

For safety and practical reasons, the new bridge would be wider and designed to carry higher loads to allow access for emergency ambulances as well as maintenance vehicles. No increase in the demand for public services would occur from the project.

The entrance to the bridge is on a projection of the eastern sidewalk along Island Avenue. Since many of the residents of Bay Island drive “golf” carts across the bridge to their residence after parking their cars in a parking garage a block away, the current alignment requires them to drive on the sidewalk to approach the bridge. The new bridge would realign the entrance to allow the golf carts to remain in the street until the final approach to the bridge entrance, leaving the sidewalk open for pedestrians. A beneficial safety feature would result which may reduce the potential for golf cart/pedestrian accidents.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 50 XIV. RECREATION

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical Less than Potentially Significant Less than deterioration of the facility would occur or be Significant with Mitigation Significant No accelerated? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

Repair of the bulkheads would require the temporary closure of some areas of Bay Isle which have the potential to be used as recreational areas. In addition construction of the sand retention wall on the beach on the western side may cause the beach to be temporarily closed to complete construction.

Operation

The change in the bridge alignment would allow golf carts to remain in the street until the final approach to the bridge entrance, thereby leaving the sidewalk for pedestrians, a beneficial aspect of the project.

There would be no increase in residential demand, thus there would be no demand for new or increased parks or other recreational facilities .

In order to meet ADA guidelines and resident needs, the approach grade of the bridge needs to be reduced from an 8 percent to a 5 percent grade. This results in the top elevation being 0.65 feet (8 inches) lower than the existing bridge. The channel is used by small recreational boats (e.g., Duffy boats, kayaks, rowboats) and is closed to motor boat traffic during the summer months when people are using the adjacent beach/swim areas. Very few small boats use this bridged channel, as there is an open navigational path around the north side of the island. Given these considerations, the loss of less than 8 inches of clearance should have very little effect on recreational boating. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion or Less than Potentially Significant Less than recreational facilities which might have an adverse Significant with Mitigation Significant No physical effect on the environment? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would result from implementation. c) Does the project include potential safety impacts to recreational users? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

Water based construction has the potential to temporarily impact marine recreational users. Recreational users would be required to stay clear of construction activities.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 Operation

The bridge design would include gates to access the walkway and side walls for safety. In addition, the bridge would be designed to comply with ADA regulations and thus reduce adverse impacts. Currently the bridge is not within compliance and safety issues exist. There would be no potential for adverse safety impacts to recreational users.

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

A gated pedestrian bridge at the end of Island Avenue connects Bay Island with Balboa Peninsula. Motor vehicles are prohibited on the island. Off-street parking for residents is provided at a 48-space parking structure located at 501 West Bay Avenue. No changes to traffic or parking would occur with the project. The only changes would be that the new alignment would allow golf carts to remain in the street and not the sidewalk of Island Avenue and a wider deck to allow for emergency and maintenance vehicles .

a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of Less than Potentially Significant Less than vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on Significant with Mitigation Significant No roads, or congestion at intersections)? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation Construction activities primarily would be water based, thus eliminating much of the land-based heavy equipment that could cause traffic impacts. Most work would be conducted via floating barges, tug boat, crane mounted floating barge, and use of work boats. The construction contract specifications will require the contractor to provide worker transportation to the site via shuttle bus or work boat from an offsite parking location for working vehicles. Construction will average of two truckloads per day of either debris removal or concrete delivery.

Implementation of the proposed project would not increase traffic above existing levels, as automobiles would not permitted onto either new bridge; the same condition as for the existing bridge. The new bridge would allow for emergency and maintenance access. No impacts would result. b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion Less than Potentially Significant Less than management agency for designated roads or Significant with Mitigation Significant No highways? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The short-term addition of up to 20 cars per day and two truckloads of heavy materials would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, County thresholds for congestion management. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic Less than Potentially Significant Less than levels or a change in location that results in Significant With Mitigation Significant No substantial safety risks? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The closest airport is John Wayne-Orange County Airport. The bridge and bulkhead repair and would not result in a change in air traffic patterns or traffic levels.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 52 d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or Less than Potentially Significant Less than dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses Significant with Mitigation Significant No (e.g., farm equipment)? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Implementation of the proposed project would increase the safety for access to Bay Isle. The new bridge would be ADA compliant, would reduce golf-cart interference, and improve earthquake safety. The replacement of the bridge would better all of these and result in a safer bridge. In addition, the repair of the bulkheads would increase safety to the island. No impacts would result. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The replacement of the bridge would allow for emergency vehicles which would be a beneficial impact over the existing bridge which does not allow for emergency access. No impacts would result. f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The parking conditions would stay the same from implementation of the proposed project. Residents would retain the mainland parking structure. No impacts would result. g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative Less than Potentially Significant Less than transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The project would not result in a change in transportation changes. The proposed project is in compliance with the Newport Beach General Plan (2001) and the Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan (2006). There would be no conflict with transportation policies, plans or programs.

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

The existing bridge carries all utilities (water, sewer, gas, power, telephone, cable TV) to/from the Island. The new bridge would be constructed before the existing bridge would be removed. Once construction of the new bridge is complete including all utilities, then the existing bridge would be removed. Only a temporary disruption of utility services would occur while each utility is connected to the new bridge utilities. This would avoid any temporary relocation of utilities, and minimize utility disruption/downtime.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment Less than requirements of the applicable Regional Water Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Quality Control Board? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The project does not involve or result in the need construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. There would be no impacts to treatment facilities.

b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the Less than Potentially Significant Less than construction of which could cause significant Significant with Mitigation Significant No environmental effects? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

See XVI. a., above. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction Less than Potentially Significant Less than of which could cause significant environmental Significant with Mitigation Significant No effects? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction and Operation

The proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of stormwater facilities. Drainage from the new bridge would be more effective than the existing bridge. The new bridge would be designed to channel runoff off the bridge into a trench drain on the island end of the bridge and into the existing storm drain system on the peninsula end. No runoff water would discharge off the sides of the bridge and into the bay for the new design. In addition, the proposed project would be designed with BMPs to comply with policy 4.3.2-22 of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan (2006). No impacts would occur to stormwater drainage facilities. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing Less than Potentially Significant Less than entitlements and resources, or are new or Significant with Mitigation Significant No expanded entitlements needed? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Operation and Construction

The proposed access bridge would not require water supplies outside of maintenance and fire water access. The bridge is to serve as a better access pathway and would not result in the increase in new water needs. Water supply would be served by existing entitlements and resources. New water lines would be installed within the new bridge. Water services would be temporarily shut off during the disconnection from the existing bridge to the new connection of water lines. The same amount of water is expected be used with the new bridge. No impacts would result.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 54 e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate Less than Potentially Significant Less than capacity to serve the project’s projected demand Significant with Mitigation Significant No in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Operation

The proposed project does not require the use of wastewater treatment (see XVI.a., above). Therefore, no impacts would occur. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with Less than sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No project’s solid waste disposal needs? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Construction

The proposed project would generate wastes from both construction and operational uses. Construction wastes are considered to last approximately 6 to 8 months for all three construction components. Waste debris would occur from the deconstruction of the existing bridge and the repair of the bulkheads. Concrete and steel sheetpile bulkheads would be removed and disposed properly. In addition, the existing bridge would be demolished and materials disposed of properly. Recyclable debris will be recycled with the appropriate waste management handlers or recycling centers.

Operational

There would be no operation solid waste increase from the project. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and Less than local statutes and regulations related to solid Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No waste? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. See XVI. f., above.

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal Less than Potentially Significant Less than or eliminate important examples of the major Significant with Mitigation Significant No periods of California history or prehistory? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Implementing the best management practices identified in the Biological Resources section would assist in reducing or avoiding eelgrass losses related to construction and vessel activities. Per the results of the analysis, in the long-term, the project would not result in substantial direct or indirect effects with mitigation incorporated. No impacts occur to cultural resources.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 55

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Less than Potentially Significant Less than projects, the effects of other current projects, and the Significant with Mitigation Significant No effects of probable future projects)? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The analysis determined that impacts as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. None of the project impacts would significantly add to the cumulative environment. Thus, the project does not add considerably to the cumulative environment.

c) Does the project have environmental effects that Less than would cause substantial adverse effects on human Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No beings, either directly or indirectly? Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

The analysis review the proposed project’s potential impacts to air pollution, noise, vehicular access to businesses, public health and safety and other issues. Construction impacts would occur that would, in the short-term, adversely effect human beings. Mitigation is recommended to reduce those construction effects. Per the results of those analyses, in the long-term, the project would not result in substantial direct or indirect effects with mitigation incorporated.

XVIII. DOCUMENT SOURCES

Allen, L. A. 1976 Abundance, Diversity, Seasonality and Community Structure of the Fish Populations of Newport Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton. 108 pp.

Allen, L. G. 1988 Final report. Results of a two-year monitoring study on the fish populations in the restored, uppermost portion of Newport Bay, California; with emphasis on the impact of additional estuarine habitat on the fisheries-related species. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service in fulfillment of Contract #WASC-85-00216.

Barnard, J. L., and D. J. Reish 1959 Ecology of Amphipoda and Polychaeta of Newport Bay, California. Allan Hancock Foundation Publication. Occasional Paper No. 21. Pp.1-106.

Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1987 Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants , 1987.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 1987 Air Toxics Assessment Manual , October 1, 1987.

California Air Resources Board 2002 EMFAC2002 Computer Model, Version 2.2, September 23, 2002.

California Department of Fish and Game 1989 Upper Newport Bay Management Plan. Unpublished manuscript.

Caltrans 1998 Technical Noise Supplement , October 1998.

2002 Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations , February 20, 2002.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 56 Chambers Group, Inc. 2006 Eelgrass survey of Bay Island. Prepared for Moffatt & Nichol. January.

Chambers Group, Inc. and Coastal Resources Management 1999 Environmental Restoration Lower Newport Harbor Eelgrass Restoration Draft Environmental Restoration Report. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. November.

City of Newport Beach 1974 City of Newport Beach Noise Element , October 15, 1974, Amended October 10, 1994.

1975 Public Safety Element.

1995 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 10.26, COMMUNITY NOISE CONTROL , 1995.

1998 Recreation and Open Space Element. Adopted June 22,1998.

2001 General Plan. Harbor and Bay Element. Adopted June 12, 2001.

2006 General Plan Update. Mariner’s Mile Viewshed Policy. Proposed. January 2006.

2005 Local Coastal Program. Coastal Land Use Plan. February 8, 2006.

-- Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual, H1, Harbor Permit Policy.

Coastal Resources Management (CRM) 2006 Marine Resources Assessment Report for the Mariners Mile Project, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for Chambers Group, Inc.

Daugherty, S. J. 1978 Benthic Ecology. In: Environmental Studies in Newport Bay. Orange County Human Services Agency, Environmental Health Division. Santa Ana, California. Pp. 129-192.

Dawson, C. M. 1963 Benthic Ecology in the Entrance Channel of Newport Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, University of Southern California. 112 pp.

Federal Register 1993 Federal Register 83, No. 41, Group 15. Occupational Noise, Article 105 Control of Noise Exposure, October 3, 1983.

Ford, R. and M.F. Platter-Rieger. 1986 Effects of Underwater Sound from Pile Driving on Behavior of Northern Anchovy (Engraulis mordax ) and Topsmelt ( Atherinops affinis ) in San Diego Bay. Report to the U.S. Navy.

Gallagher, S.R. 1997 Atlas of Breeding Birds Orange County, California . Sea and Sage Audubon Press.

Hardy, R. A. 1970 The Marine Environment in Upper Newport and Sunset Bays, Orange County, California. California Department of Fish and Game Report. MMR Reference No. 70-10. 84 pp.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 Horn, M. H., and L. G. Allen 1981 Ecology of fishes in Upper Newport Bay, California: Seasonal dynamics and community structure. California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Technical Report No. 45. 102 pp.

Marine Biological Consultants (MBC) and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 1980 (Dec). Irvine Ranch Water District Upper Newport Bay and Stream Augmentation Program. Final Report. October 1979-August.

MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. (MEC). 1997 Biological resources of Upper Newport Bay, California. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District. Contract Number DACW09-D-003. November 1997. 71 pp. plus appendices.

National Marine Fisheries Service 1991 (Revised 1999). Southern California eelgrass mitigation policy. 4 pp.

1991 Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. 6 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. Last amended: February 1999.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 2003 2002 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segment.

Seapy R. R. and C. L. Kitting 1978 Spatial structure of an intertidal assemblage on a sheltered sandy beach. Mar. Bio 46:137-145.

Seapy, R. R. 1981 Structure, Distribution, and Seasonal Dynamics of the Benthic Community in Upper Newport Bay, California. California Department of Fish and Game. Marine Resources Technical Report No. 46. 74 pp.

South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District 1980 A Climatological/Air Quality Profile, California South Coast Air Basin , Prepared by Ralph W. Keith, 1980.

South Coast Air Quality Management District 2000-2004 Air Pollution Data Monitoring Data (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004).

1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook , April 1993.

2003 Final 2003 AQMP, August 1 2003.

2003 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003.

1993 Rules and Regulations, January 1993.

2005 Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size, February 2005.

Southern California Association of Governments 1991 Final 1991 Air Quality Management Plan , South Coast Air Basin, July 1991.

1994 Final 1994 Air Quality Management Plan , South Coast Air Basin, 1994.

1997 Final 1997 Air Quality Management Plan , South Coast Air Basin, 1997.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 58 Stevenson, R.E. and K.O. Emery 1958 Marshlands at Newport Bay. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications. Occasional Paper No. 20. University of Southern California Press, Los Angles, California.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1984 A Guide to HUD Environmental Criteria and Standards Contained in 24 CFR Part 51 , August 1984.

1985 The Noise Guidebook , March 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1971 Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances , Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1971.

1985 AP-42, A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors , September 1985.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1997 Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study.

Ware, R. R. 1985 DeAnza Peninsula Marina feasibility study: Biological resources assessment and evaluation. Prepared by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences and Karlin Marsh, Biological Consultant. June.

White, W.S. 1977 Taxonomic Composition, Abundance, Distribution, and Seasonality of Fish Eggs and Larvae in Newport Bay, California. M.A. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton.

Bay Isle Bulkhead Repair and Bridge Replacement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 59

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

METHODOLOGY RELATED TO AIR QUALITY The air quality assessment for the proposed project included estimating emissions associated with construction and operation of the project. The impact analysis contained in this section was prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as included in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook , emission factors presented by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in AP- 42, A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, the screening tables included in the SCAQMD Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size , and the California Air Resources Board’s EMFAC2002 Emissions Model for on-road mobile source emissions. EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY Regional Setting The project area lies in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin) that includes all of Orange County as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature varies little throughout the 6,600 square-mile Basin. The mean annual high and low temperatures in the project area, as measured at Newport Beach, are 68 o and 53 oF, respectively. The overall climate is a mild Mediterranean, with average temperatures reaching up to 77 oF in the summer and dipping to 44 oF in the winter. In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. The total average annual precipitation is 11.88 inches as measured in Newport Beach, and the majority of precipitation occurs between November and April. Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Typical winds in the project area average from 6 to 8 miles per hour (mph) during the day and 5 to 6 mph during the night. Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the Basin, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally have a duration of a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. Within the project area Santa Ana winds have a decidedly distinct pattern. Santa Ana winds from a northerly direction pour through the Cajon Pass then follow the Santa Ana River in a southwestward motion direction to the coast. The highest wind speeds typically occur during the afternoon due to daytime thermal convection caused by surface heating. This convection brings about a downward transfer of momentum from stronger winds aloft. While the maximum wind speed during Santa Ana conditions is undefined, sustained winds of 60 mph with higher gusts are not uncommon in the project vicinity. Ambient Air Quality The following characterization of the baseline atmospheric environment includes an evaluation of the ambient air quality and applicable rules, regulations, and standards for the area. Because the project has the ability to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated on the local, State, and federal levels. Affected Environment The project is located in the City of Newport Beach and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). However, the SCAQMD reports to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and all emissions are also governed by the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) as well as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Baseline Air Quality Topographical features that affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants in the project area include the mountain ranges to the northeast of that prevent the transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions. The quality of the ambient air is affected by pollutants emitted into the air from stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point sources and area sources. Point sources consist of one or more emission sources at a facility with an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industrial processing plants. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources are a combination of emissions from automobiles, trucks, and indirect sources. Indirect sources are sources that by themselves may not emit air contaminants; however, they indirectly cause the generation of air pollutants by attracting vehicle trips or consuming energy. Examples of indirect sources include an office complex or commercial center that generates commuter trips and consumes energy resources through the use of electricity for lighting and space heating. Indirect sources also include actions proposed by local governments, such as redevelopment districts and private projects involving the development of either large buildings or tracts. In addition, indirect sources include those emissions created by the distance vehicles travel. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains and self-propelled construction equipment. The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and State law. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized as primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. CO, ROG, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), and most fine particulate matter (PM 10 , PM 2.5 ), including lead (Pb) and fugitive dust; are primary air pollutants. Of these CO, SO 2, and PM 10 , and PM 2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. O 3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) The Clean Air Act Amendment of 1971 established national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both the State of California and the federal government have established health based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six air pollutants. As shown in Table 1, these pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM 10 ), and lead. (PM 2.5 particulate matter has also recently been added to this listing. However, for regulatory reasons discussed below and because the SCAQMD has not issued daily criteria for this pollutant species, potential PM 2.5 impacts are omitted from this analysis.) In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition to primary and secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants, which actually threaten public health.

TABLE 1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Federal California Primary Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources Motor vehicles, paints, 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Ozone (O 3) coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 0.08 ppm Internal combustion Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm engines, primarily gasoline- (CO) powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum- refining operations, Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average * 0.053 ppm industrial sources, aircraft, (NO ) 2 ships, and railroads. 1 hour 0.25 ppm * Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery Annual Average * 0.03 ppm Sulfur Dioxide plants, and metal (SO 2) processing. 1 hour 0.25 ppm * 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm

Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, Annual 20 µg/m 3 50 µg/m 3 combustion, atmospheric Suspended Arithmetic Mean photochemical reactions, Particulate Matter and natural activities (e.g. (PM ) 10 wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 3 3 150 µg/m 50 µg/m 24 hours (PM ) (PM ) 10 10 TABLE 1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Federal California Primary Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, Annual 3 3 combustion, atmospheric Suspended 12 µg/m 15 µg/m Arithmetic Mean photochemical reactions, Particulate Matter and natural activities (e.g. (PM ) 2.5 wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 65 µg/m 3 24 hours *

Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling Monthly 1.5 µg/m 3 * Lead (Pb) facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Quarterly * 1.5 µg/m 3 3 Sulfates (SO 4) 24 hours 25 µg/m * Industrial processes. ppm: parts per million; µg/m 3: micrograms per cubic meter * = standard is not used for this pollutant/duration by this entity.

Air Quality Management Planning The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The 1997 AQMP, updated in 1999 and replaced in 2003, was based on the 1994 AQMP and ultimately the 1991 AQMP and was designed to comply with State and Federal requirements, reduce the high level of pollutant emissions in the SCAB and ensure clean air for the region through various control measures. To accomplish its task, the 1991 AQMP relied on a multilevel partnership of governmental agencies at the Federal, State, regional and local level. These agencies (i.e., the USEPA, CARB, local governments, SCAG, and SCAQMD) are the cornerstones that implement the AQMP programs. The most recent comprehensive plan is the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan adopted on August 1, 2003. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM 10 ); replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) standard that the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) has met since 1992. The current plan is under review by the USEPA. While the SCAQMD and governing board recommend the use for the 2003 AQMP for CEQA purposes, the 1997/99 Plan still serves as the local contribution to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Areas that meet the ambient air quality standards are classified as “attainment” areas while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as “non-attainment” areas. The severity of the classifications for ozone non-attainment include and range in magnitude from: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The attainment status for the SCAB is included in Table 2.

TABLE 2 ATTAINMENT STATUS FOR THE SCAB Pollutant State Status Federal Status Ozone Extreme Non-attainment Extreme Non-attainment PM 10 Serious Non-attainment Serious Non-attainment CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance NO 2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance

The Basin is also designated as attainment of the CAAQS for SO 2, lead, and sulfates. Areas that are extreme non-attainment of the ozone standard must meet attainment by November 15, 2010. Areas considered as serious non-attainment of the CO and PM 10 standards must reach attainment by December 31 of the years 2000 and 2006, respectively, or as expeditiously as possible. Federal Clean Air Act Requirements The CAA requires plans to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures including the adoption of reasonably available control technology for reducing emissions from existing sources. Emission control innovations in the form of market-based approaches are explicitly encouraged by the CAA. The SCAQMD is the first local agency in the country to adopt a market-based approach for controlling stationary source emissions of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. Other Federal requirements addressed in the revision include mechanisms to track plan implementation and milestone compliance for O 3 and CO. USEPA is now phasing out and replacing the current 1-hour primary ozone standard with a new 8-hour standard to protect against longer exposure periods. The new ozone standard is set at a concentration of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) and represents a tightening of the existing 1-hour ozone standard which is set at 0.12 ppm. Under the form of the standard adopted by USEPA, areas are allowed to disregard their three worst measurements every year and average their fourth highest measurements over three years to determine if they meet the standard.

For particulate matter, the USEPA established a new annual and a 24-hour standard for PM 2.5 to complement the existing PM 10 standards. The new annual PM 2.5 standard is set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter and the new 24-hour PM 2.5 standard is set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter. The annual component of the standard was set to provide protection against typical day-to-day exposures as well as longer-term exposures, while the daily component protects against more extreme short-term events. For the new 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the form of the standard is based on the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations measured in a year (averaged over three years) at the monitoring site with the highest measured values in an area. This form of the standard will reduce the impact of a single high exposure event that may be due to unusual meteorological conditions and thus provide a more stable basis for effective control programs.

While USEPA has retained the current annual PM 10 standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter, it has modified the form of the 24-hour PM 10 standard set at 150 micrograms per cubic meter. More specifically, USEPA revised the 1-expected exceedance form of the current standard with a 99th percentile form, averaged over three years. The promulgation of the new standards for ozone and fine particulates is now complete and the USEPA designated the Basin as “Severe 17” and is to reach attainment in the year 2021. The Basin has also been designated as non-attainment of the PM 2.5 standard and is to reach attainment by the year 2014. The State Implementation Plans that will incorporate attainment demonstrations with the new 8- hour and PM 2.5 standards are expected to be required within three years of the air quality designations or by 2007. Therefore, the current regulatory control strategies will continue to focus on attaining the 1-hour ozone standard with the recognition that these controls will have benefits toward attaining the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards. The USEPA is considering several options in transitioning from the 1-hour to the 8-hour standard, while ensuring that no backsliding will occur. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) To ensure continued progress toward clean air and comply with state and federal requirements, the SCAQMD, in conjunction with the CARB and SCAG, prepared the 2003 revision to its AQMP (2003 AQMP). The 2003 AQMP employs up-to-date science and analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources, and area sources. The 2003 AQMP updates the demonstration of attainment with the federal standards for ozone and PM 10 , replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal NO 2 standard that the Basin has met since 1992. The 2003 AQMP proposes policies and measures to achieve federal and state standards for healthful air quality in the Basin and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin (formerly named the Southeast Desert Air Basin) that are under District jurisdiction (namely, Coachella Valley). The Coachella Valley PM 10 Plan was recently revised in June 2002 and forwarded to CARB and USEPA for approval. This revision to the Plan also addresses several State and federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air quality modeling tools. This Plan is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to the Ozone SIP for the SCAB for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. However, this revision points to the urgent need for additional emission reductions (beyond those incorporated in the 1997/99 Plan) to offset increased emission estimates from mobile sources and meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. Each revision of the AQMP represents a snapshot in time, based on the best available information. The 2003 AQMP generally is very similar to the structure of the 1997 Plan and the 1999 amendments to the ozone SIP, but like all new editions includes significant enhancements. The key improvements incorporated in the 2003 AQMP are summarized as follows: • Revised emissions inventory projections using 1997 as the base year, the CARB on-road motor vehicle emissions model EMFAC2002, and SCAG 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) forecast assumptions; • Revised control strategy that updates remaining control measures from the 1997/1999 SIP and incorporation of new control measures based on current technology assessments; • Reliance on 1997 ozone episodes and updated modeling tools for attainment demonstration relative to ozone and PM 10 ; and

• An initial assessment of progress toward the new federal 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards.

The basic PM 10 control strategy contained in the 1997 Plan, augmented by a few additional PM 10 control measures included in this Plan revision, appears to be adequate to demonstrate attainment of the federal PM 10 standard. With respect to ozone, however, the basic strategy of the 1997 Plan and the 1999 amendments were significantly overhauled to address the new realities of higher mobile source emissions and lower carrying capacities for ozone as indicated by new modeling and meteorological episodes. Additional reductions, above and beyond those committed to in the 1997 Plan and 1999 amendments, will be necessary to demonstrate attainment with the federal ozone standard and present a significant challenge. Under federal conformity regulations, all federal or federally funded transportation projects must conform to the SIP, and must not be a cause of impeding progress toward attainment of the federal standards. To establish conformity, emissions from future projects must be accounted for in the future baseline emissions inventories, such that the attainment demonstrations include these future emissions. For transportation projects, planning is now underway out to the year 2030. The Plan establishes conformity budgets for the future years based on the 2006 PM 10 and 2010 ozone attainment demonstrations. While ozone precursor emissions are expected to continue to decline in future years, primary PM 10 emissions are expected to increase due to the expected growth in mobile vehicle population and vehicle miles traveled. To address this increase in primary PM 10 emissions from travel while continuing to provide for attainment after 2006, this plan establishes a mechanism for conformity demonstration purposes based on the implementation of the new control measure, “Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Control Measure” in which commitments are made to achieve additional primary PM 10 reductions from transportation-related PM 10 source categories in 2020 and 2030 to offset the increased emissions. This measure will be revised in future SIP revisions to reflect updated PM 10 emission inventories and attainment demonstrations. Baseline Air Quality The project is located within the Newport Bay area located in the southeastern portion of the North Coastal Source/Receptor Area (SRA) 18 and ambient air quality levels are best inferred from the North Coastal monitoring station located in Costa Mesa to the northwest of the project. However, the North Coastal station does not measure particulates and these data are as reported at the Central Orange County (SRA 17) monitoring station located in Anaheim. These are two of areas under SCAQMD jurisdiction. The communities within a given SRA are expected to have similar climatology. Additionally, similar traffic levels and the presence of local point sources contribute emissions to these areas. Subsequently, similar ambient air pollutant concentrations are expected within any given SRA. The most current five years of data monitored at these stations are included in Table 3. The data indicate that although improvement has been made, the area continues to exceed the State and federal ozone standards on a regular basis. Still, the area experiences some of the best air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. PM 10 particulates, as measured at the inland Orange County monitoring station, also exceed the State standard, but have not exceeded the federal standards in the last 5 years of data. Furthermore, while these levels have dropped from the past, no clear trend is discernable over the last 5 years. The area also experiences exceedances of the PM 2.5 standard. Suspended particulate matter is a mixture of natural and manmade materials that include soil particles, biological materials, sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, and lead. Smaller particles (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) are created by the combustion of fossil fuels, but are also given off from tire wear and brake dust. Particulate levels in the more coastal project area would be expected to be lower than those measured at the Central Orange County area due to the sea breeze as well as a reduced level of mobile source emissions in the area. None of the other criteria pollutants have exceeded their relevant standards in the last 5 years of monitoring.

TABLE 3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY, NORTH COASTAL ORANGE COUNTY MONITORING STATION Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Pollutant/Standard Maximum Levels During Such Violations 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Ozone State 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm 1 0 4 5 0 Federal 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm 0 0 0 1 0 Federal 8-Hour > 0.08 ppm 0 0 1 2 0 TABLE 3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY, NORTH COASTAL ORANGE COUNTY MONITORING STATION Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Pollutant/Standard Maximum Levels During Such Violations 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.098 0.087 0.107 0.104 0.085 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.073 0.071 0.088 0.087 0.073 Carbon Monoxide State 1-Hour > 20 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 8-Hour > 9.5 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 6 5 7 5 5 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 4.6 4.3 5.8 4.1 3.3 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 Sulfur Dioxide State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 2 Inhalable Particulates (PM 10 ) State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m 3 19.6 1 8.2 9.8 11.5 4.8 Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m 3 01 0 0 0 0 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m 3) 93 1 69 96 74 65 2 Inhalable Particulates (PM 2.5 ) Federal 24-Hour > 65 µg/m 3 0.4 1 0.3 0.9 0 0 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m 3) 70.8 1 68.6 115.5 58.9 54.7 1 Less than 12 full months of data and may not be representative. 2 Percent of samples exceeding standard. Particulates as monitored at Central Orange County. ppm: parts per million; µg/m 3: micrograms per cubic meter Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases. Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Schools are also considered as sensitive as children are present for extended periods of time. Active recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. The project is located in a residential area of the Newport Bay. The most proximate of these homes could be as close as about 25 feet from the most proximate construction activities. IMPACT ANALYSIS The project includes the replacement of existing bulkheads and bridge. Bulkhead construction includes demolition of the existing structure as well as the placement of steel sheetpiles and a concrete cap. Sheetpiles will be installed using a vibratory hammer. In conjunction with the bulkhead, construction includes the placement of a sand retention wall. The fiberglass sheetpiles will also be driven into place using the vibratory hammer. A premanufactured cap will be installed and fastened in place. Bridge construction includes the placement of new precast concrete pilings using an impact hammer. A precast superstructure would be installed over the pilings via barge, or, if the assembly is to be cast in place, concrete operations would be land-based. Projected heavy equipment air emissions are calculated using the emissions data included in Tables A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook ) (April 1993). Daily equipment use is based on an assumed equipment assemblage prepared by Moffatt & Nichol. Piles would be placed using a vibratory hammer. The hammer could be placed aboard a barge that would be positioned using a tugboat. Tugboat emissions are based on data included in AP- 42, A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors prepared by the USEPA (September 1985). Vehicle emissions were calculated using Year 2006 projections for Orange County vehicle travel included in the EMFAC2002 emissions model distributed by the CARB. The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook . The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. Additionally, the potential for localized impacts is assessed for site construction using screening tables included in the SCAQMD Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size (February 2005). a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant With Mitigation. The proposed project represents the replacement of bulkheads and sheetpiles and an existing bridge. The project is not expected to draw additional residents to the area and no long-term emissions are associated with the project. Furthermore, as discussed below, construction emission levels would be mitigated to less than significant and the project would not result in significant concentrations of localized pollutants at receptor locations. As such, with the included mitigation for construction, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Air pollutant emissions associated with the project could occur over the short-term from construction activities to support the proposed project. Once installed, the project is not expected to draw additional residents to the area. As such, no long-term emissions are associated with the completed project. Standards of Significance Regional Emissions Thresholds for Construction The following significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established by the SCAQMD. Projects in the SCAB with construction-related emissions that exceed any of these emission thresholds could be considered to be significant: • 75 pounds per day of ROG • 100 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of CO

• 150 pounds per day of PM 10 • 150 pounds per day of SOx Regional Emissions Thresholds for Operations Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD Handbook . The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with existing State Implementation Plan (SIP) or consistency with the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The daily operational emissions “significance” thresholds are: • 55 pounds per day of ROG • 55 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of CO

• 150 pounds per day of PM 10 • 150 pounds per day of SOx Projects in the SCAB with operation-related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds could be considered to be significant. Local Emission Standards • California State 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm • California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm

• California State 1-hour NO 2 standard of 0.25 ppm 3 • SCAQMD 24-hour construction PM 10 standard of 10.4 µg/m 3 • SCAQMD 24-hour operations PM 10 standard of 2.5 µg/m Short-term Air Quality Impacts Regional Impacts Less than Significant With Mitigation. Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be exhaust emissions from the use of tugboats and powered construction equipment and motor vehicle emissions associated with worker and materials haul trips. Construction activities will consume diesel fuel and thus produce combustion by-products. These emissions were estimated using SCAQMD emissions factors. The equipment and truck assemblage is as presented by Moffatt & Nichol. With noted exceptions, emissions factors are based on factors included in the Handbook . Bulkhead and Sand Retention Wall As is typical with construction, certain pieces of equipment work together to accomplish a task. Bulkhead and sand retention wall installation would use a barge-mounted crane, a vibratory hammer, as many as two pumps (to move concrete), a backhoe, concrete cutting equipment, and a compressor to power metal cutting equipment. It is assumed that all of these pieces of equipment could be used on any given day of construction and that these pieces each operate 8 hours a day. Projected heavy equipment air emissions are calculated using the emissions data included in Tables A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D of the SCAQMD Handbook . The SCAQMD does not include vibratory hammers in its equipment listing. In this case, a survey of three manufacturer’s, including 17 vibratory hammer models, showed an average of 310 horsepower for vibratory hammers. Emission for the hammer were then calculated as a “miscellaneous” piece of equipment with 310 horsepower. A tugboat would be used to position the barge and a crew boat would be required to transport as many as 10 workers per day. Each of these is assumed to operate 2 hours per day. Tugboats can be powered by engines ranging in size from a few hundred horsepower to as much as 3,600 horsepower. This analysis assumes the use of an average value (i.e., 1,800 hp) in ascertaining vessel emissions. To derive tugboat emissions, fuel consumption must first be ascertained. Presented below are the specifics for marine vessel fuel consumption.

Fuel Type Diesel Fuel Density, lb/gal 7.12 Specific Fuel Consumption, lb/hp/hr 0.40 Idle Load Factor 0.20 Maneuver Load Factor 0.50 Cruise Load Factor 0.80

Because AP-42 does not present emissions for either SOx or PM 10 for marine vessels, an average of the emission factors for heavy construction equipment, as included in AP-42 , Table II- 7.1 “Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment” was utilized for these two pollutant species. The crew boat is assumed to have 50 horsepower and also operate 2 hours per day. Due to the requirement for reduced speed in the bay, the boat is assumed to operate at a maneuver load factor (as opposed to cruise). Fuel consumption is then calculated at about 3 gallons per day. Crew boat CO, NOx, ROG, and SOx emissions are based on data included in AP-42 , Table II-3.5, “Average Emission Factors for Inboard Pleasure Craft.” PM 10 emissions are based on AP-42, Table II.7-1. Emissions would also be generated by on-road vehicles. An estimated 80 truck loads of debris would be removed and 27 truck loads of concrete would be required over the construction period, estimated at six months. Based on 22 days of construction per month, this averages about one truckload per day. The results of this analysis are included in Table 4. Because most the work is to be carried out in the Bay over water, any dust and its attendant PM 10 would be negligible. Some dust and its attendant PM 10 , could be generated during construction at the sandy beach area. The URBEMIS2002 model distributed by the SCAQMD estimates that in the absence of any dust control measures, each acre disturbed generates 10 pounds of PM 10 per day. The sandy beach area is approximately 3,040 square feet or about 0.07 acre. Assuming no dust control, work in this are a could produce as much as 0.7 pound per day of PM 10 from dust. Bridge Another component of the project is the replacement of the existing bridge. Bridge replacement would use a barge-mounted crane, an impact hammer, and concrete cutting equipment. A pump could also be used for the installation of new concrete. These pieces are each assumed to operate 8 hours a day. Again, heavy equipment emissions are calculated using the emissions data included in Tables A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D of the SCAQMD Handbook . As with the vibratory hammer, the impact hammer is estimated at 310 horsepower and emissions were calculated as a “miscellaneous” piece of equipment. A tugboat would be used to position the barge and a crew boat would be required to transport as many as 10 workers per day. Each of these is assumed to operate 2 hours per day. These emissions are calculated in accordance with the methodology presented for the bulkhead and sand retention wall construction. Emissions would also be generated by on-road vehicles. Over the construction period, an estimated 20 truck loads of debris would be removed and 13 truck loads of concrete would be required (if the bridge is cast in place), or about one truck a day. The results of this analysis are also included in Table 4. Note that the simultaneous construction of the bulkhead and sand retention wall in conjunction with that for the bridge could exceed the daily NOx threshold presenting a potentially significant impact.

TABLE 4 PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LB/DAY) 1 1 Equipment Type CO NOx ROG SOx PM 10 Bulkhead and Sand Retention Wall Backhoe 4.4 6.5 0.9 0.6 0.3 Crane 6.0 15.4 2.0 1.3 1.0 Hammer 30.8 36.9 4.6 3.1 2.3 Pumps 3.0 4.9 0.5 0.5 0.3 Concrete Saw 6.5 0.7 7.9 1.0 0.3 Compressor 1.6 2.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 Tugboat 9.5 6.1 7.4 1.2 1.0 Work Boats 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 Worker Travel 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Haul Truck 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Fugitive Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Total Daily Emissions 65.1 75.3 24.5 8.1 6.1 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No Bridge Crane 6.0 15.4 2.0 1.3 1.0 Hammer 30.8 36.9 4.6 3.1 2.3 Pumps 1.5 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 Concrete Saw 6.5 0.7 7.9 1.0 0.3 Tugboat 9.5 6.1 7.4 1.2 1.0 Work Boats 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 Worker Travel 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Haul Truck 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Daily Emissions 57.6 63.8 23.1 7.0 4.8 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No Combined Bulkhead, Sand Retention Wall, and Bridge Construction Bulkhead and Sand Retention Wall 65.1 75.3 24.5 8.1 6.1 Bridge 57.6 63.8 23.1 7.0 4.8 Total Daily Emissions 122.7 139.1 47.6 15.1 10.9 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No 1 Equipment use based on data presented by Moffatt and Nichol.

Mitigation: The analysis indicates that if the repair of the bulkheads and bridge occur simultaneously, daily NOx levels could exceed the applicable threshold resulting in a potentially significant impact. The following measures shall be required: • Only one vibratory hammer/impact hammer shall be used for no more than 8 hours on any given day. • Heavy equipment shall be tuned up and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment logs demonstrating proper maintenance shall be maintained at the site during construction activities for City inspection. • Heavy equipment shall not be allowed to remain idling for more than five minutes duration. • Trucks shall not be allowed to remain idling for more than two minutes duration. • Electric power shall be used to the exclusion of gasoline or diesel generators and compressors whenever feasible. Residual Impacts As demonstrated in Table 4, if use of either of the two hammers is discontinued, daily NOx emissions would be reduced by 36.9 pounds per day. NOx for the combined operations would be reduced from 139.1 to 102.2 pounds per day. The other noted measures would further reduce exhaust NOx emissions (by as much as about 5 percent). Assuming a 5 percent reduction in heavy equipment emissions, but no reduction in mobile source emissions(i.e., the tugboats, crew boats, haul trucks, and worker trips), residual NOx levels are calculated at 97.9 pounds per day and the impact would be reduced to less than significant. Localized Impacts Less than Significant Impact. In addition to the mass daily threshold standards, project construction has the potential to raise localized ambient pollutant concentrations. This could present a significant impact if these concentrations were to exceed the ambient air quality standards included in Table 1 at receptor locations. Bay Isle and the surrounding area that would accommodate the barges and on-water construction equipment is approximately 5 acres in size. The SCAQMD provides screening tables for projects up to 5 acres in size ( Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size , SCAQMD February 2005). The screening tables indicate that in the Newport Beach area, the construction of projects that are 5 acres in size would not result in significant localized concentrations so long as CO does not exceed 950 pounds per day, NOx des not exceed 335 pounds per day, and PM 10 does not exceed 14 pounds per day. The data included in Table 4 indicate that even if construction of the bulkheads and bridge were to occur simultaneously, emissions concentrations would not exceed the Localized Significance thresholds or ambient air quality standards and this impact is less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant With Mitigation. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. As demonstrated above, the project is could exceed the construction threshold for NOx if bulkhead and bridge construction were to occur concurrently. The provided mitigation would reduce this impact to less than significant thereby reducing the cumulative contribution to less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The noted SCAQMD screening tables indicate that construction activities would not create substantial concentrations above ambient air quality standards at sensitive locations and the impact is less than significant. No new emissions would be produced by the subsequent operation of the project and any operational impacts would also be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Project construction will involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from construction activities and from trucks bringing materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional “whiff” of diesel exhaust from trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are commonplace among watercraft and represent an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact. REFERENCES California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2002 Computer Model, Version 2.2, September 23, 2002 South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District, 1980, A Climatological/Air Quality Profile, California South Coast Air Basin , Prepared by Ralph W. Keith South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Pollution Data Monitoring Data (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) South Coast Air Quality Management District, S CAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook , April 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2003 AQMP, August 1 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology , June 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1993, Rules and Regulations, January 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size , February 2005 Southern California Association of Governments, Final 1991 Air Quality Management Plan , South Coast Air Basin, July 1991 Southern California Association of Governments, Final 1994 Air Quality Management Plan , South Coast Air Basin, 1994 Southern California Association of Governments, Final 1997 Air Quality Management Plan , South Coast Air Basin, 1997 United States Environmental Protection Agency, AP-42, A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors , September 1985

APPENDIX A-1

BULKHEAD REPAIR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS, BULKHEAD REPAIR AND SAND RETENTION WALL The included spreadsheet may be used to determine average daily emissions associated with project construction. Heavy equipment emission factors are as included in Tables A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). The user has the option of changing any of these parameters and should adjust the number of pieces, horsepower ratings, and hourly usage values if better data are available. Vehicle Emissions are based on an Orange County Year 2006 model run of the CARB BURDEN2002 computer module included in the EMFAC2002 Emissions Model. The total daily vehicle emissions for each vehicle class included in the model was divided by the total number of vehicles miles traveled in each class so that an average emission rate per mile could be determined. Worker vehicles are a composite of light duty autos, light duty trucks under 3,750 pounds, light trucks between 3,751 and 5,150 pounds, and motorcycles. Per the URBEMIS2002 model, default trip lengths are set at 20 miles per trips for workers and 30 miles per trips for trucks. PM10 emissions associated with dust are based on the assumptions included in the URBEMIS2002 computer model distributed by the SCAQMD. The model reports that 10 pounds of PM10 are generated per acre disturbed per day. Because all work is to be performed over the water, no dust is generated.

Setting Piles INPUT ASSUMPTIONS Heavy Equipment Emissions (All Diesel Except Where Noted) Exhaust Emission Factors (Pounds per Horsepower-Hour) Equipment Type Number Used Hours per Day Horsepower Load Factor CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 Skid-Steer Loaders 0 8 39 51.5 0.02 0.021 0.004 0.002 0.0015 Wheel Loaders 0 8 147 54 0.011 0.023 0.002 0.002 0.0015 Tractors/Loaders 0 8 77 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Airport Terminal Tractors 0 8 96 82 0.013 0.031 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Excavators 0 8 56 58 0.011 0.024 0.001 0.002 0.0015 Trenchers 0 8 60 69.5 0.02 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Rollers 0 8 99 57.5 0.007 0.02 0.002 0.002 0.001 Other Construction Equipment 1 8 310 62 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Cement/Mortar Mixers 0 8 11 56 0.01 0.024 0.002 0.002 0.001 Paving Equipment 0 8 99 53 0.01 0.024 0.002 0.002 0.001 Asphalt Pavers 0 8 91 59 0.007 0.023 0.001 0.002 0.001 Plate Compactors 0 8 8 43 0.007 0.02 0.002 0.002 0.001 Concrete Saws 1 8 56 73 0.02 0.002 0.024 0.003 0.001 Crushing Equipment 0 8 127 78 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Aerial Lifts 0 8 80 62.5 0.013 0.031 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Rough Terrain Fork Lifts 0 8 80 62.5 0.022 0.018 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Fork Lifts 0 8 83 30 0.013 0.031 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Cranes 1 8 194 43 0.009 0.023 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Sprayers 0 8 92 50 0.008 0.017 0.005 0.002 0.0015 Dumpers/Tenders 0 8 23 38 0.006 0.021 0.002 0.002 0.001 Signal Boards (Routing Boards) 0 8 11.22 82 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Bore/Drill Rigs (Groundwater) 0 8 600 75 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Bore/Drill Rigs (Groundwater) 0 8 600 18.3 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0 8 97 68 0.013 0.031 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Generator Sets (<50 Hp) 0 8 300 100 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Pressure Washers (<50 Hp) 0 8 21 30 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Hydro Power Units 0 8 35 48 0.008 0.017 0.005 0.002 0.0015 Welders (<50 Hp) 0 8 35 45 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Pumps (<50 Hp) 2 8 23 74 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Air Compressors (<50 Hp) 1 8 37 48 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Landscape Loaders 0 8 55 46.5 0.02 0.021 0.004 0.002 0.0015 Backhoe Loaders 1 8 79 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Log Loaders 0 8 116 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Excavator (Utility) 0 8 34.2 58 0.011 0.024 0.001 0.002 0.0015 Excavator (Construction) 0 8 151.7 58 0.011 0.024 0.001 0.002 0.0015 Surfacing Equipment (All gasoline) 0 8 8 49 0.83 0.004 0.043 0.0005 0.00025 Tampers/Rammers (All Gasoline 0 8 8 55 0.83 0.004 0.043 0.0005 0.00025 2-Wheeled Tractors (All Gasoline 0 8 7 62 0.6 0.0058 0.032 0.0005 0.00025 Shredder (>5 Hp, All Gasoline) 0 8 8 36 1.479 0.0018 0.056 0.0004 0.0004 Chain Saws (>4 Hp, All Gasoline) 0 8 6 50 2.15 0.0021 0.684 0.0008 0.00143 Crawler Dozers 0 8 102.9 59 0.011 0.023 0.002 0.002 0.0015 Rubber-Tired Dozers 0 8 356 59 0.01 0.021 0.002 0.002 0.001 Crawler Tractors 0 8 157 57.5 0.015 0.022 0.002 0.002 0.0015 Tractor (Utility Compact) 0 8 29.4 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Tractor (Utility General Purpose) 0 8 69 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Fellers/Bunchers 0 8 183 71 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Concrete Pavers 0 8 130 62 0.01 0.024 0.002 0.002 0.001 Skidders 0 8 134 61.5 0.011 0.025 0.002 0.002 0.0015 Off-Highway Trucks 0 8 489 41 0.032 0.026 0.005 0.002 0.002 Graders 0 8 156.6 57.5 0.008 0.021 0.003 0.002 0.001 Scrapers 0 8 266.76 66 0.011 0.019 0.001 0.002 0.0015

Mobile Source Emissions Exhaust Emission Factors (Pounds per Mile) Vehicle Class Number Round-Trips Miles Per Round-Trip CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 Workers (Inc. Autos & Trks Under 5,151 Lbs) 10 20 0.012102 0.001186 0.001388 9.33E-06 0.000104 Medium Trucks (5,751 - 8,500 lb) 0 30 0.014761 0.002179 0.00167 1.67E-05 0.000138 Light Heavy Trucks (8,501 - 10,000 lb) 0 30 0.01229 0.004928 0.002352 2.04E-05 0.000102 Light Heavy Trucks (10,0501 - 14,000 lb) 0 30 0.012753 0.00882 0.002472 5.62E-05 0.000169 Medium Heavy Trucks (14,001 - 33,000 lb) 0 30 0.021209 0.021209 0.002967 0.000238 0.000989 Heavy-Heavy Trucks (33,001 - 60,000 lb) 1 30 0.017588 0.03291 0.002517 0.000378 0.001133

Dust Emissions PM10 Emission factor (Pounds per Acre per Day) Area Disturbed Acres Disturbed PM10 Active Area 0 5.00 Unpaved Access Roads 0 5.00

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OUTPUT VALUES Heavy Equipment Emissions Exhaust Emissions (Pounds per Day) Equipment Type CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 Skid-Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wheel Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractors/Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Airport Terminal Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Construction Equipment 30.75 36.90 4.61 3.08 2.31 Cement/Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Concrete Saws 6.54 0.65 7.85 0.98 0.33 Crushing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rough Terrain Fork Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fork Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cranes 6.01 15.35 2.00 1.33 1.00 Sprayers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dumpers/Tenders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Signal Boards (Routing Boards) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bore/Drill Rigs (Groundwater) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bore/Drill Rigs (Groundwater) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Generator Sets (<50 Hp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Washers (<50 Hp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hydro Power Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Welders (<50 Hp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pumps (<50 Hp) 3.00 4.90 0.54 0.54 0.27 Air Compressors (<50 Hp) 1.56 2.56 0.28 0.28 0.14 Landscape Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Backhoe Loaders 4.41 6.47 0.88 0.59 0.29 Log Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavator (Utility) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavator (Construction) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfacing Equipment (All gasoline) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tampers/Rammers (All Gasoline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-Wheeled Tractors (All Gasoline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shredder (>5 Hp, All Gasoline) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chain Saws (>4 Hp, All Gasoline) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crawler Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rubber-Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractor (Utility Compact) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractor (Utility General Purpose) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fellers/Bunchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Concrete Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Skidders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Daily Equipment Emissions (Pounds per Day) 52.27 66.83 16.17 6.81 4.34

Mobile Source Emissions Exhaust Emissions (Pounds per Day) Vehicle Class CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 Workers (Inc. Autos & Trks Under 5,151 Lbs) 2.42 0.24 0.28 0.00 0.02 Medium Trucks (5,751 - 8,500 lb) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Light Heavy Trucks (8,501 - 10,000 lb) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Light Heavy Trucks (10,0501 - 14,000 lb) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Medium Heavy Trucks (14,001 - 33,000 lb) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Heavy-Heavy Trucks (33,001 - 60,000 lb) 0.53 0.99 0.08 0.01 0.03 Total Daily Mobile-Source Emissions (Pounds per Day) 2.95 1.22 0.35 0.01 0.05

Dust Emissions Dust PM10 Emissions (Pounds per Day) Area Disturbed PM10 Active Area 0.00 Unpaved Access Roads 0.00 Total Daily PM10 From Dust Emissions (Pounds per Day) 0.00

Total Daily Emission (Pounds per Day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 55.21 68.05 16.53 6.82 4.40

SCAQMD Daily Threshold Values (Pounds per Day) 550 100 75 150 150

APPENDIX A-2

BRIDGE REPAIR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS, BRIDGE

The included spreadsheet may be used to determine average daily emissions associated with project construction. Heavy equipment emission factors are as included in Tables A9-8-B, A9-8-C, and A9-8-D of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). The user has the option of changing any of these parameters and should adjust the number of pieces, horsepower ratings, and hourly usage values if better data are available. Vehicle Emissions are based on an Orange County Year 2006 model run of the CARB BURDEN2002 computer module included in the EMFAC2002 Emissions Model. The total daily vehicle emissions for each vehicle class included in the model was divided by the total number of vehicles miles traveled in each class so that an average emission rate per mile could be determined. Worker vehicles are a composite of light duty autos, light duty trucks under 3,750 pounds, light trucks between 3,751 and 5,150 pounds, and motorcycles. Per the URBEMIS2002 model, default trip lengths are set at 20 miles per trips for workers and 30 miles per trips for trucks. PM10 emissions associated with dust are based on the assumptions included in the URBEMIS2002 computer model distributed by the SCAQMD. The model reports that 10 pounds of PM10 are generated per acre disturbed per day. Because most work is to be performed over the water, no dust is generated.

Setting Piles INPUT ASSUMPTIONS Heavy Equipment Emissions (All Diesel Except Where Noted) Exhaust Emission Factors (Pounds per Horsepower-Hour) Equipment Type Number Used Hours per Day Horsepower Load Factor CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 Skid-Steer Loaders 0 8 39 51.5 0.02 0.021 0.004 0.002 0.0015 Wheel Loaders 0 8 147 54 0.011 0.023 0.002 0.002 0.0015 Tractors/Loaders 0 8 77 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Airport Terminal Tractors 0 8 96 82 0.013 0.031 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Excavators 0 8 56 58 0.011 0.024 0.001 0.002 0.0015 Trenchers 0 8 60 69.5 0.02 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Rollers 0 8 99 57.5 0.007 0.02 0.002 0.002 0.001 Other Construction Equipment 1 8 310 62 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Cement/Mortar Mixers 0 8 11 56 0.01 0.024 0.002 0.002 0.001 Paving Equipment 0 8 99 53 0.01 0.024 0.002 0.002 0.001 Asphalt Pavers 0 8 91 59 0.007 0.023 0.001 0.002 0.001 Plate Compactors 0 8 8 43 0.007 0.02 0.002 0.002 0.001 Concrete Saws 1 8 56 73 0.02 0.002 0.024 0.003 0.001 Crushing Equipment 0 8 127 78 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Aerial Lifts 0 8 80 62.5 0.013 0.031 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Rough Terrain Fork Lifts 0 8 80 62.5 0.022 0.018 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Fork Lifts 0 8 83 30 0.013 0.031 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Cranes 1 8 194 43 0.009 0.023 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Sprayers 0 8 92 50 0.008 0.017 0.005 0.002 0.0015 Dumpers/Tenders 0 8 23 38 0.006 0.021 0.002 0.002 0.001 Signal Boards (Routing Boards) 0 8 11.22 82 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Bore/Drill Rigs (Groundwater) 0 8 600 75 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Bore/Drill Rigs (Groundwater) 0 8 600 18.3 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0 8 97 68 0.013 0.031 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Generator Sets (<50 Hp) 0 8 300 100 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Pressure Washers (<50 Hp) 0 8 21 30 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Hydro Power Units 0 8 35 48 0.008 0.017 0.005 0.002 0.0015 Welders (<50 Hp) 0 8 35 45 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Pumps (<50 Hp) 1 8 23 74 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Air Compressors (<50 Hp) 0 8 37 48 0.011 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.001 Landscape Loaders 0 8 55 46.5 0.02 0.021 0.004 0.002 0.0015 Backhoe Loaders 0 8 79 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Log Loaders 0 8 116 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Excavator (Utility) 0 8 34.2 58 0.011 0.024 0.001 0.002 0.0015 Excavator (Construction) 0 8 151.7 58 0.011 0.024 0.001 0.002 0.0015 Surfacing Equipment (All gasoline) 0 8 8 49 0.83 0.004 0.043 0.0005 0.00025 Tampers/Rammers (All Gasoline 0 8 8 55 0.83 0.004 0.043 0.0005 0.00025 2-Wheeled Tractors (All Gasoline 0 8 7 62 0.6 0.0058 0.032 0.0005 0.00025 Shredder (>5 Hp, All Gasoline) 0 8 8 36 1.479 0.0018 0.056 0.0004 0.0004 Chain Saws (>4 Hp, All Gasoline) 0 8 6 50 2.15 0.0021 0.684 0.0008 0.00143 Crawler Dozers 0 8 102.9 59 0.011 0.023 0.002 0.002 0.0015 Rubber-Tired Dozers 0 8 356 59 0.01 0.021 0.002 0.002 0.001 Crawler Tractors 0 8 157 57.5 0.015 0.022 0.002 0.002 0.0015 Tractor (Utility Compact) 0 8 29.4 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Tractor (Utility General Purpose) 0 8 69 46.5 0.015 0.022 0.003 0.002 0.001 Fellers/Bunchers 0 8 183 71 0.02 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.0015 Concrete Pavers 0 8 130 62 0.01 0.024 0.002 0.002 0.001 Skidders 0 8 134 61.5 0.011 0.025 0.002 0.002 0.0015 Off-Highway Trucks 0 8 489 41 0.032 0.026 0.005 0.002 0.002 Graders 0 8 156.6 57.5 0.008 0.021 0.003 0.002 0.001 Scrapers 0 8 266.76 66 0.011 0.019 0.001 0.002 0.0015

Dust Emissions PM10 Emission factor (Pounds per Acre per Day) Area Disturbed Acres Disturbed PM10 Active Area 0 5.00 Unpaved Access Roads 0 5.00

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OUTPUT VALUES Heavy Equipment Emissions Exhaust Emissions (Pounds per Day) Equipment Type CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 Skid-Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wheel Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractors/Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Airport Terminal Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Construction Equipment 30.75 36.90 4.61 3.08 2.31 Cement/Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Concrete Saws 6.54 0.65 7.85 0.98 0.33 Crushing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rough Terrain Fork Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fork Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cranes 6.01 15.35 2.00 1.33 1.00 Sprayers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dumpers/Tenders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Signal Boards (Routing Boards) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bore/Drill Rigs (Groundwater) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bore/Drill Rigs (Groundwater) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Generator Sets (<50 Hp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Washers (<50 Hp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hydro Power Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Welders (<50 Hp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pumps (<50 Hp) 1.50 2.45 0.27 0.27 0.14 Air Compressors (<50 Hp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Backhoe Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Log Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavator (Utility) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavator (Construction) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfacing Equipment (All gasoline) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tampers/Rammers (All Gasoline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-Wheeled Tractors (All Gasoline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shredder (>5 Hp, All Gasoline) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chain Saws (>4 Hp, All Gasoline) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crawler Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rubber-Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractor (Utility Compact) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tractor (Utility General Purpose) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fellers/Bunchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Concrete Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Skidders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Daily Equipment Emissions (Pounds per Day) 44.80 55.36 14.74 5.66 3.77

Dust Emissions Dust PM10 Emissions (Pounds per Day) Area Disturbed PM10 Active Area 0.00 Unpaved Access Roads 0.00 Total Daily PM10 From Dust Emissions (Pounds per Day) 0.00

Total Daily Emission (Pounds per Day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 47.74 56.58 15.09 5.68 3.83

SCAQMD Daily Threshold Values (Pounds per Day) 550 100 75 150 150